Gun Control
A thread on Quora.com
You make some good points. I have to disagree strongly on the 2nd amendment respectfully. The first has a specific written exception, the 2nd amendment only thou shall not infringe. I think that is very clear that any barrier or law against owning any firearm is unconstitutional. The beliefs in gun control in the US is a very new idea. No founder every believed nor did they write in their constitution an exception. The right. Feel free to counter my point if you would like. Thank you for your thoughtful comment
Thank you for raising this point. It’s an interesting issue. I studied this in the first year of law school with fascination.
The Founding Fathers didn’t define “infringed” but the Supreme Court came as close as anyone in D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The opinion was delivered by good ol’ Scalia and said that while no one can ever completely take away the right to bear arms, the right isn’t unlimited either. It can have reasonable regulations placed on it. The other conservative justices joined him along with swing-vote Kennedy.
And I agree with this interpretation from both a constitutional interpretation and a common-sense standpoint. Scalia and Co. were probably some of the best in Supreme Court history and they could not ignore the real-world implications of bearing firearms by declaring all regulation illegal.
To help us understand this, our professor explained to us that the Bill of Rights establishes “a floor, not a ceiling” for rights. No one can go below what is in the Bill of Rights.
Our genius Founding Fathers knew that in everyday life, some rights would be safer to exercise than others but they couldn’t possibly foresee every possible situation in which the exercise of these rights could play out. So instead of trying to write legislation that would apply to the next Christ-knows-how-many centuries, they established a baseline but left it to the states (also an important constitutional principle), their legislatures, and the courts to impose reasonable limits.
I see your point and respect your reference to precedence. I see that as a recent case with less precedence even just 20 years earlier. The first case on guns control came right after a massacre during prohibition using Thompson machine guns which were legal. There was no attorney for the pro gun side and no argument. The court set up and essentially mock ruling and ruled in favor of the new gun law. My deal with the court defining infringe is that it already has an English meaning from the writing of the constitution with little change. There is no precedent for the government supporting gun control even at state or local levels around the time of the founders. Even the federalist thought it meant for the people to be able to buy any firearms then government had in order to be able to function as a well “trained’ militia. This applied to all individuals not just militia members. I substituted trained for regulated as well regulated at the time was used like a well regulated clock which means something working efficiently and as it should
A question I ask frequently when it comes to this issue and others is what do you propose we do when the Constitution is wrong? Or when one part of the Constitution is in conflict with another part? That is the problem I see with anyone taking a hardline stance defending one part, in this case, the 2nd Amendment, and not at least acknowledging the possibility that it is wrong, or at least no longer applicable exactly as written without exception. I understand that you personally may not have an issue with it as written, but to not recognize the larger issue at play seems intellectually dishonest to me if for no other reason than guns (or at a minimum, guns in the wrong hands) have stripped far too many people of even more fundamental rights protected by the Constitution than the right to bear arms…life being the first and foremost.
Change the constitution by its process or accept it. There is no other option to just ignore it
The Constitution is hardly a comprehensive document, and it specifically calls out the purpose of the government it creates. Yes, there is a process defined to change it when something is so significant that it requires a more “permanent” change. Aside from that, however, it was absolutely the intent of the founders that the government do what is necessary to meet the needs of the country and carry out the original stated purpose. It's not even complicated…just 5 basic principles:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
In order to achieve those fundamental principles, Congress needs to pass laws, state legislatures need to pass laws. Those laws need to not contradict the Constitution for federal laws and the both the U.S Constitution and respective state Constitution for state and local laws.
And as you know, when a dispute arises, the Court will issue a ruling based on what they determine to be the intent and actual meaning of the Constitution to be. Now, there are lots of arguments surrounding the intent and meaning of the 2nd Amendment, some are logical and some are mostly just a statement of personal preference and an interpretation that defies logic for the purpose of getting what you want.
To deal with those situations, the Court generally attempts to preserve the elements of the Constitution being called into question, while also satisfying those five basic principles. Now, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, you could argue that it is absolute, and that it means there shall not be a single restriction placed on any “arms". Or, you can do what the Court did in their Heller decision, and allow for some regulations or restrictions, as determined to be necessary or prudent by our elected representatives to serve those 5 fundamentsl principles.
I would suggest that even the most ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment choose wisely, and accept, or even support some of these regulations, because if the answer remains that none are acceptable, the only logical end is that the 2nd Amendment will be eliminated all together. I say that, because left alone, totally unfettered by any laws or regulations, what has evolved is in direct conflict with four of the five guiding principles, and is effectively irrelevant when it comes to the fifth, “providing for the common defence".
That's just the reality of the situation, and if advocates want fewer restrictions, then they should be working more aggressively than anyone to make sure gun violence declines, make sure there are no more mass shootings, make sure kids are not accidentally shooting themselves with the unsecured guns of a parent, make sure so called “militia" are not threatening lawmakers with guns because they don't like being told to wear a mask, and the list goes on.
Refusing to do those things and continuing to fight the attempts of other, more responsible citizens, to do so is just going to make more people come with more laws until there is no more 2nd Amendment…because as you pointed out, there is definitely a Constitutional process to do just that, and it's not like we haven't done much bigger things through the Amendment process over the years. Also, keep in mind that right now, somewhere around 80% of Americans support a wide range of Federal gun laws being implemented, with that percentage increasing steadily, and the only thing blocking legislation is a small group of elected legislators who personally benefit more from their opposition than they do from actually representing the wishes of their constituents. I'm not sure how much I would rely on that long term.
I didn't read most of that since you were wrong in the first paragraph. The law is a law not a football rule. It can NOT just be overlooked. There is only one way to change the constitution. An amendment. Sorry but your comment is not educated in facts. The facts are clear. The constitution is the law of the land. If it wasn't then I guess trump can just be president for life since it is outdated anyway and he known better? Hiw about you dont take your constitution lessons from Woodrow wilson and other who overlooked the law
Simple enough then. States pass whatever laws they want, and Congress can do the same. If the 2nd Amendment (as you interpret it) violating the written foundational principles of the Constitution itself is irrelevant, then state and Federal laws violating the 2nd Amendment (again, as you interpret it) is also irrelevant. No need to pass any amendments, just use your logic and do what the majority wants anyway. I'm cool with that.
The second amendment is very clear in its language. No law can be passed that denies a citizen of owning any firearm for any reason. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This also mean concealed carry and any license to carry is illegal. Funny how there is no limit to the 2nd amendment in the constitution. There is actually one in the 1st. A militia not neccessary any than fox news or a church is neccessary for the 1st amendment. The rights are individual right to everyone not the government. Why do you think the goal of the constitution in its preamble somehow expands the power to the government to anything it wants to do
No law…sure. Citizens under age 18. Felons. People convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. Laws have been passed prohibiting those people from possessing firearms. Both liberals and conservatives have supported such 2nd amendment infringements for decades. Slippery slope. Seemed reasonable at the time I bet. But an inch was given, now they want more. That Rittenhouse kid has been charged with misdemeanor possession of a firearm by a minor, among other more serious charges. But he's a citizen…
I am simply pointing out that there are 5 foundational principles set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution that spell out very specifically what the entire purpose of the remainder of the Constitution (and the government it establishes) is. That is the starting point, and everything else flows from that. 240+ years ago the 2nd Amendment made sense. Now, in 2020, as has been the case for some time, given much different circumstances, the 2nd Amendment, as defined by you and others who seem to believe that if a handheld, nuclear grenade launcher existed, you are allowed to carry it to the bar or Walmart with you, and that a child, as soon as they are able to hold one, should be free to carry one to daycare as well (there should be no restrictions whatsoever, afterall, right?) is not consistent with those 5 foundational principles, so that only leaves two options, get rid of it all together, or pass laws that make sense and limit the 2nd Amendment right sufficiently so that it is not infringing on other rights.
I mean literally, what you are saying is that if I offer your kid a grenade to play with, and he accepts it, that is his or her right according to the 2nd Amendment. A cop standing right there watching it happen cannot do a damn thing about it.
Or, look at it the other way…given the number of people shot, stabbed, beaten and blown up with “arms" every year in this country (because yes, “arms" includes more than just guns), how can anyone argue that their existence is consistrnt with the “general welfare" of the people, or serves to create “domestic tranquility", among other things? So, what do we scrap? General welfare, domestic tranquility, our liberty? Or do we say that there actually are some Constitutional limits on what gun and who can carry one?
That's why I say that within the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment as you choose to define it is in conflict (i.e. violates) other parts of the Constitution…and I also argue that by their very nature, the 5 principles I am referencing supercede the 2nd Amendment.
Arnie, you make very solid points in this string. Matthew seems unwilling to entertain any of your ideas, has a fixed idea about the “right to bear arms” as universal without conditions.
“… 240+ years ago the 2nd Amendment made sense. Now, in 2020, as has been the case for some time, given much different circumstances, the 2nd Amendment, as defined by you and others who seem to believe that if a handheld, nuclear grenade launcher existed, you are allowed to carry it to the bar or Walmart with you, and that a child, as soon as they are able to hold one, should be free to carry one to daycare as well (there should be no restrictions whatsoever, after all, right?) is not consistent with those 5 foundational principles, so that only leaves two options, get rid of it all together, or pass laws that make sense and limit the 2nd Amendment right sufficiently so that it is not infringing on other rights.”
…
Let me jump into the fray.
The Second Amendment reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Somehow in the discussion of the Second Amendment everybody routinely skips over the part about “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” What was that about? Why even mention it at all?
Travel back in time to the mid and late 18th century colonies in North America and let’s see how the security of a free State was achieved then.
Ahhh, there were not any state supported standing armies or navies (or air force for that matter) back then. Security from foreign threats were met by calling up civilians to form local militias to work in coordination with each other to ward off those threats. As a for instance the so called French and Indian War of 1754 - 1762, part of the larger world wide Seven Years War between France and Britain, was fought primarily by local British colonial militias fighting against local French militias who had the support of certain native tribes that were allied with them at that time.
There simply was no tax base to support a standing army back then in the colonies but security had to be achieved somehow.
This was also the case in most of Europe at that time as well - civilians were called up by local nobles to head off to fight for their king with the promise of enhanced social standing should they come back alive. This system of calling up militias allowed the maximum number of workers to remain in their productive pursuits that generated the goods needed to feed, clothe, and house themselves as well as generate income for their noble lords.
So it was important that to be able to call up civilians to form “well regulated militia” that they also come with their arms in hand, whatever they happened to have available. There was no problem with not having standard issue weaponry. Everybody on both sides had pretty much the same sort of weapons - muzzle loading muskets, single shot and then 30 seconds or so to reload. What made them effective is that they were “well regulated”, meaning under the command of a recognized authority who trained ordinary civilians with limited fire power to work together to become an effective fighting force.
Indeed “well regulated militia” is the key phrase to the whole Second Amendment to which the rest of the Amendment is subordinate. Yet somehow that initial defining phrase of the Second Amendment is blithely overlooked in the heat of debate over the Second Amendment. It should be the most crucial phrase to understanding the role of the Second Amendment in its day and whether that role is still salient in today’s world, a world where we have a meaningful tax base to support a wide array of armed forces to ensure the security of a free State. Do “well regulated militias” even have a role at all?
I would argue that they do.
The National Guard is the remnant of what used to be civilian militias and they still have a function. During times of domestic civil disturbances that get past the ability of local police / sheriff agencies to handle, the National Guard is called to help.
Members of the National Guard are required to attend annual two week training sessions as well as several weekends throughout the year to practice such basic skills as use of weaponry and how to form units and command structures to address typical crisis situations ranging from domestic riots to hurricanes and floods. Should they have unfettered access to weapons when called to duty? Absolutely they should! Those weapons are stored in lockers at local National Guard armories and only removed when that local National Guard unit is called for duty.
Let me repeat that: the weapons that the National Guard are authorized to use are kept locked up safely in a secured armory and only removed by authorized trained National Guard men or women when that particular local National Guard unit is called for emergency duty.
This is what the Second Amendment was written for, the right to bear arms by members of a well regulated militia to protect the security of a free state.
The Second Amendment was not written to protect the rights of any citizen to carry whatever weapons they want wherever they want whenever they want. Such a blatant misrepresentation of the Second Amendment speaks to either disingenuous reasoning brought on by cult worship of weapons as a sacred right, or simple lazy thinking that would rather rely upon group consensus of certain chosen groups rather than independent investigation into history followed by comprehensive analysis of that history to apply to modern times.
As you have rightly pointed out several times, the constitution is a living document. It is the law of the land, yes, but our founders also recognized that no constitution can remain valid and unaffected by changes that they can’t foresee at the time they were writing the document. I would say clearly that the development of permanent professional armed forces in the early 20th century removed a major reason why the general citizenry had been expected to own their own arms and provide their own arms when called for militia duty in the 18th century.
So, if anything, the Second Amendment should be repealed altogether and let state and local authorities manage their affairs around public safety. The National Guard, a nationally recognized authority, would not be subject to state or local rules so that they could carry out their valid duties to ensure public safety and security.
The various armchair warriors out there, however, would probably be required to get a license to own non essential weaponry, meaning that they could own licensed hunting rifles and licensed hand guns but would have to show good cause why they need to own assault rifles, fully automatic weaponry, hand grenades, surface to air missiles*, and so forth. Owning guns that are registered and licensed with the state would allow the state to require basic gun safety classes be passed on a regular basis to be able to keep that license as well as gun inspections to make sure the guns were in minimum useable condition.
*I kid you not. I’ve known of at least two people who have a full on armory in their basements that include anti tank weaponry, surface to air missiles, and several different versions of fully automated assault rifles. They think they are super patriots. Oh boy!
…
A couple of weeks ago there was a shooting one and a half blocks from here. The teenage son shot his mother after an argument and then shot himself. While that may sound prosaic enough, the fact was that the father kept loaded guns in the house. The father also knew that his son was mentally unstable, on prescription drugs to keep his equilibrium. Apparently the drugs weren’t working that day and the son flew off the handle in a rage and killed his mother, then turned the gun on himself. Somehow the father vacated the premise in a timely manner.
Now…., had the authorities known that an obvious potential for misuse of a fire arm existed in this home they could have required that the weapon be safely locked away, preferably outside the home and then retrieved when needed.
This tragedy, and many like it, can only happen when guns are ubiquitous and people don’t show any respect for the danger they represent. Licensing would go a long way to resolving this problem.
…
Ahhh, but I need my gun for self defense. If an intruder comes into my house I need to defend myself and my family.
OK. Fair enough. I agree that you need to defend yourself and your family.
Are guns the best way to defend yourself? Or would pepper spray work just as well to disable an intruder / intruders long enough to escape to safety and then call the police and let them handle the son of a bitch as best they can?
In my case I keep handy several cans of wasp spray in easy to find locations throughout the house. Wasp spray has a 27′ range, is obvious how to use and easy to aim and shoot, and as I understand it would pretty much blind an intruder if the spray stream hit anywhere on or near the face. Whether wasp spray would cause permanent damage or not I do not know. I actually don’t care all that much either as long as the intruder can’t harm me or my family.
I do know that should I take a gun and shoot it trying to hit an intruder I am just as likely to miss the intruder and hit someone in my family. I am also quite likely to do damage to the house that will need repair later. Also, to be clear, it is rare that people are instantly killed in a panic shooting situation, much more likely that they are injured and still able to shoot back, at least for a while.
This is not so much a problem with pepper spray or wasp spray as at least I know wherever I hit somebody they will instantly be disabled and they will survive, maybe blind, panicked, and not happy for a quite while but they will survive. And there will be no bullet holes that I have to patch up later either.
…
I’ll make one last point here.
The right to bear arms is not a right to fight an armed revolution. There is no country in the world at any time in history that has ever condoned the right to revolution through violence, and no country ever will. That is a conflation of ideas that relies on utterly absurd twisted reasoning but it has become an underlying theme for most “Second Amendment” supporters, AKA gun nuts who have made a cult fetish of their guns.
There are plenty of other “free States” that have figured out how to provide for their own security without unfettered access to guns by everybody. We should grow up and realize that we can do the same here and finally rid ourselves of the endless cycles of senseless mass killings that have become routine in the last two decades.
That will only happen when we break the spell of the gun cult as a sacrosanct institution of the US constitution. That isn’t even close to what the Second Amendment was written to address nor is it close to any reasonable interpretation of that Amendment either.
With the appropriate emphasis on “well regulated militia", it would seem both logical and appropriate that the regulation of said “militia" would subsequently include their weapons as well, thereby giving local, state and federal legislatures essentially carte blanche to impose any and all regulations and restrictions they deem appropriate in their efforts to provide for the safety and security of the people they are responsible for.
Yep!
Rights dont go away just because you want them too. You will find your beliefs arent even popular enough to be passed by congress let alone go through the amendment process that us by design. To stop beliefs like yours. You are wrong it isnt outdated but your belief in a living constitution is the reason for our dying Republic.
If we didn't have a living Constitution, the Republic would have died 160 years ago, and unfortunately, conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, nationalists, and Evangelicals are still doing their best to destroy it now. You do it under a myth of “Constitutional Originalism", which I challenge you to find any reference to in any founding document. You won't of course because the founders were smarter than you, and because they wanted the nation the were creating to be enduring, knew they could not foresee every future challenge, so they created a framework that could provide stability as the nation evolved, yet allow it to adapt as times changed. There were a lot of flaws in it, and they are still being exploited by conservatives to damage it every day. For one, they were too concerned about tyranny of the majority and left the door wide open to the minority rule we see in many places today. Do you think they intended for a person in Wyoming to have their vote for President be weighted 4 times greater than the same vote cast by a person in Texas? They were absolutely opposed to the idea of a king because monarchs are above the law, but they made the mistake of thinking that three seperate but equal branches would prevent the President from operating above the law. That turns out to have been a massive underestimation of what a President with fascist dictator tendencies could do if paired up with an impotent Senate/Congress.
So, what era’s rules is it that you want to go back to? You obviously oppose progress, you seem to think we knew everything we needed to know in 1787, I feel like I can safely assume you would have preferred a whiter, more male dominated nation, maybe where only landowners got to vote. You likely think passing an amendment to allow income tax was the beginning of the theft. So, where would you set that dial to in your time machine? The 18th Century? The very early 19th Century when Jackson eliminated the national debt by selling off half the countries land (and crashing the economy in the first place)? Would anytime before slavery was ended suffice? Maybe before 1919 when women gained the right to vote and before FDR “ruined" everything by creating Social Security? Or was everything still cool before Johnson pushed through Civil Rights, Voter Rights and Medicare?
Don't worry though, I don't expect you to answer any of those questions. I know it's impossible for you to do because it's one giant internal conflict for conservatives. On one hand, there are some changes and some progress you like, though you can't admit it because that would blow your whole Originalism argument, while on the other hand you are opposed to any change that takes away some of your systemic advantages or things you personally like. I'll bet you even believe our country is based on Christianity and not secular law, and that Confederate statues were erected to honor war heroes who fought for state's rights. Close?
That is the opposite of what I am saying. Why do you keep saying that the 2nd amendment violates the constitution. It doesnt. The 2nd amendment is above regular law. No state or even the nation can override it by a majority vote of the congress or an order of congress.
Shooting and massacres exist in the time of the founders so that is irrelevant. Try to take guns and see what happens.
Okay. You're right…it's all you “patriotic freedom fighters” that are keeping America safe and protecting our liberty. Keep telling yourself that. Keep telling yourself it is conservatives that allowed America to last this long. The rest of us should just say thank you, right?
Without the benefit of that class;this is exactly my thought process on the 2A. Sorry to interrupt.
Frankly with all the insanity going on today I think the Framers had some grasp on the fact that the 2nd might prove indispensable someday in the future. 10 years ago I might not have felt this way but anything is possible now after what the last year has shown us.
If the founders had ever witnessed a scene like the Las Vegas shooting, where one man killed hundreds in only a few minutes, they might have considered some kind of qualification on who could have such weapons.
The Las Vegas shooter was a mentally ill progressive who wanted to shoot in a bunch of conservatives. The problem is the radical ideology of the intolerant left, not gun capability.
Before you start regulating guns, you should start teaching healthy ideology. The problem with progressive ideology is that it separates every one into groups, either by class, race, religion, or sex. This division causes a radical tribalism to form within society, turning different groups against each other. Blaming all the political opposition for the problems each group has.
Stop teaching kids that conservatives (who are by far and wide family oriented, god fearing, moral, hardworking, country loving, and charitable human beings) are inbred, racist, bigoted, ignorant, backwards, trash.
Just because someone doesn’t believe in paying taxes for universal health care and college for a bunch of lazy, self entitled, degenerates from the streets of the city doesn’t mean they are evil!
And that’s what it is. The democrats create an environment where education is lowered to be more “inclusive.” Degenerate culture is accepted to make degenerates feel like society doesn’t “judge” them. People are taught to never take responsibility, because the government will pass laws to solve every problem. Like all child support is the fathers responsibility even in 50/50 custody cases. They will punish fathers by taking away their drivers license for being 30 days late, but give women free housing. They send all jobs overseas, then tax American companies greater or raise the minimum wage to make up for the lack of income. These policies force companies to move their headquarters overseas paying lower taxes to these other countries instead.
Then they blame Republicans for guns, and “systematic racism.” Meanwhile these cities are all ran by Democrats, and minorities. The only thing systematic is their lies and failures.
LBJ called the civil rights bill the n***** bill, and it was the Republicans in Congress who passed the civil rights act when the democrats wouldn’t. Yet the Democrats (in their lower standard schools) teach kids that they passed the civil rights, and that the republicans where the evil racists. They will talk about a great switch, but their was never a single Dixiecrat that left the Democratic Party to join the Republican Party. All that happened was the Democrats lost the race war, and the Dixiecrats left politics altogether. The democrats started targeting the wealth in cities, and pandering to the prejudices in the population for their political gain.
What proof do you have of that that he was a “progressive?” The FBI and profilers have stated repeatedly they have found no cause for his action and that the individual was apolitical in almost all aspects of his life. He was distrubed, period.
Lol another person who chooses to completely ignore the southern strategy.
The “southern strategy” was mainly a democrat invention to excuse their loss to Nixon.
Basing anything on this BS is to be misled or to mislead intentionally.
Racists do not suddenly change their colors , and if they did the anti-racists-republicans would not have allowed them in!!!
You must believe the racist democrat lies to be able to continue to support America’s racist party-the democrats.
People who view the world through the lens of race are called racists, no matter what lies they tell about their beliefs!
Ok, you explain why rural Southern racists decided to start backing the Republican party if the Republican party didn’t start making outreach to them then.
They like to glance over the fact that white Supremacists and nationalists all belong to the Republican Party. And they never give a good reason why that is. I wonder why
Racists still back them democrats! What racist would not be happy with the results of the democrat policies towards Blacks? In NYC they abort more Black babies than are born. Racists rejoice.
Why do you think racists now vote Republican, because the racists said so………………..
Making an outreach to rural southerners in not the same as an outreach to rural racist except in the minds of democrat racists.
Where did you get your source from? This is not true. I live in Las Vegas and know quite a few people in law enforcement, emergency workers, and in the medical field. I also had several friends shot, thankfully they were not one of the FIFTY EIGHT people that died, and many that lived that horror. Some told me they kept falling over people while running and some fell after slipping in blood. It’s comments like yours that gets the conservations heated. So speaking of radicalized, please defend the upcoming events where armed militia type are going to every capitol and commit insurrection in federal buildings. This is what the FBI is preparing for. Don’t get me wrong I’m a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, but that is the reason people want reform.
I can’t believe this Nazi propaganda got upvoted. Who the hell calls our culture “degenerate”, but Nazi filth?
There were actually plenty of similar event near the founders. Some kied around 15 people with a sword in an attack before. They had seen one man kill many. Our rights doebt change for safety.
The Constitution sets out some very basic fundamental rights, and the purposes of the government it establishes. Life would seem to be the most basic, fundemental and indisputable right. If the government is prevented from even doing that one basic thing, to the best of its ability by some other portion of the document, how do you reconcile that? It appears that in your mind, your personal preference should rule over any other right other people may rightfully enjoy. In this case, to put it bluntly, you have determined that your “rights" are to be strictly preserved even at the expense of the rights of the rest of society, and that’s awfully hard to justify, no?
How does his right being strictly preserved have any effect on the rights of the rest of society? He may have an arsenal the likes of which you can only imagine and the possession of those arms is absolutely nobody’s business unless they are used for bad purpose. You would restrict everyone’s rights for the bad actions of a small minority. That’s awefully hard to justify, no?
The first thing requires acknowledging that we do have a problem with gun violence in this country, including things like having a death rate 4 times higher than the next worst “wealthy" nation, 11.2 per 100,000, for around 40,000 dead each year. Germany, for example, has 1 for every 100,000 in population. The second worst is Switzerland at 2.8. Additionally, we have 400 or so mass shootings (defined as 4 or more people being shot in a single incident) each year, with no other country even in the same ballpark. There are over 1 million women alive currently who have been shot by an abusive partner (and fortunately survived), but overall domestic abuse victims are 5 times more likely to be murdered if there are guns in the home than if not. 51% of all suicides are carried out with a gun, nearly double the next most common method, suffocation.
The point is that in nearly every facet of our lives, access to a gun leads to much higher numbers of death and injury. Additionally, though, one of the primary reasons people choose to own guns, and especially push for conceal carry and open carry, is self-defense. The problem with that is that every year there are more accidental shootings than documented cases of defensive uses of a gun.
Now, if your response to those numbers is to start citing other numbers like those killed in car accidents or something, there is really not much point in continuing because while there are obviously a lot of deaths and injuries from other causes, and guns are not the leading cause, guns as a cause are very unique in their nature compared to all the rest for a variety of reasons, and that type of comparison is really just a false equivelancy. Each type of cause has circumstance unique to it, each should be evaluated, and each is generally addressed in one way or another that is unique to the method. The bottom line is that statistically, the existence of guns in pretty much any situation leads to more death or injury (some intentional, some unintentional) than the same situation if a gun is not present. And since you asked about “rights", for a starting point, I would suggest that we should agree someone getting shot is pretty easy to see as a violation of their individual rights.
There are other things that make this an issue, however. Some examples include all of the money that is spent out of education and law enforcement budgets to address the existence of guns. In schools, metal detectors and armed security officers cost taxpayer billions nationally, which is money not being spent on actual education. For law enforcement, the amount of protective gear and their own weapons that must be paid for, again out of tax dollars, to deal with what's out on the street makes up a huge amount of money that could be spent on more officers, more programs to prevent crime and not just react after the fact, and other resources like training.
From an economic standpoint, I would argue that depriving communities of these other, more beneficial things, because of the money the existence of guns forces forces us to spend, is in a sense, a violation of everyone's rights (assuming you believe education and public safety are rights we should be able to reasonably expect in this country). Based on the 5 principles I keep referencing from the Constitution, they both have a direct impact on the general welfare of our society, as well as domestic tranquility, at a minimum.
All in all, I am not advocating that all guns be made illegal, and in reality, while I think some are pretty ridiculous and pointless, what kinds of guns are of less concern to me than others. My original point continues to be generally speaking that with rights come responsibilities, and I absolutely dispute this idea some push that basically the 2nd Amendment means a person can own what they want, do what they want with it, and there is nothing anyone can do or say about it because of one line in a 240+ year old document (that somehow has magically been elevated to a higher status than any other “line" of that same document) and the impact of them exercising that right (collectively speaking) is someone else's problem to deal with. It's THAT mentality that I am calling out, as opposed to just saying take their guns away.
And that is why I was saying that there are basically three ways this can go. 1) We can go with the “my 2nd Amendment right is absolute, and screw anyone that doesn't like it” approach. 2) We can draw upon other parts of the Consitution and determine the 2nd Amendment (and the guns it allows to exist in our country) is not consistent with those areas I described, and we use those other parts of the Constitution to ultimately take away the 2nd Amendment completely. OR 3) The 2nd Amendment advocates can stop acting like spoiled children, put on their big boy pants and accept the respinsibilities that go hand in hand with the right. And ultimately, I would argue that eventually, enough people are going to be hurt or killed by guns that when the hardcore 2A advocate says “you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hand", society will say “okay", and guns will go bye bye, because option 1 that I listed above is untenable for the long term.
I was also pointing out that these days over 80% of the people in this country are in favor of a variety of regulations such as universal background checks, improvements to registration laws, changes to how guns may be purchased, dealing with mental health issues, etc. and that maybe the 2A advocates ought to stop fighting these things because they should have a positive impact on gun violence and that will reduce the number of people “coming for their guns.” Put another way, the best way for the most hardcore gun advocate to get to continue to enjoy the freedoms they have is to be a part of the solution to the growing gun violence problem, and not fight those solutions every step of the way. You, or “they" may not believe it, but at some point, if the problem continues to get worse, eventually more drastic measures will be taken…it's inevitable.
That was an awefull long answer that did nothing to answer my original query. How does one persons posession of arms threaten you as long as they dont use those arms in a threatening or violent manner?
Your response says a lot more than you think it does. It tells me your feelings about the subject mean more to you than the facts. It tells me that you believe in restricting the rights of the many because of the actions of a minority. Most concerning is your thinly veiled threat to visit violence upon those who will not submit to your way of thinking. I’ll bet you’ve never thought about it that way have you? Arnie Olsen, proponent of preemptive violence.
I thought that throughout my comments in this thread the answer to your question was given multiple times, but let me try to explain it again. The Constitution, outside of the one amendment you like to fall back on states very clearly that there are 5 foundational things the government it creates is expected to provide for. These are basic rights we all should be able to count on the government securing for all people.
- Establish Justice,
- Insure domestic Tranquility,
- Provide for the common defense,
- Promote the general Welfare,
- Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
At the time the Constitution was written, the Bill of Rights was added, and it is easy to see how all ten of the amendments served these principles, including the 2nd Amendment. Now, however, that is not really the case. Some are simply irrelevant, such as the 3rd Amendment, and in the case of the 2nd Amendment, it has actually caused a failure to provide all of those 5 basic rights. It's not the only reason obviously, but it certainly contributes.
Specifically, your question is directed at the relationship between two individuals, and in that sense, you are technically correct. You owning whatever gun you want does not take away my individual rights provided, as you said, you do not use it on me or threaten me with it. That's not what I am arguing, however. I am talking about the collective society, including all people and all gun owners, and collectively our society has a major problem with gun violence as gun violence actually has stripped many of justice, whether that is the parent who loses a child in a school shooting or an unarmed civilian who is shot by a police officer who is nervous about them having a gun because so many actually do. Given the shear number of shootings, domestic tranquility is hardly provided for anymore, and even when an actual shooting isn't the issue, armed protesters intimidating legislators inside the capital, gathering outside the home of the secretary of state in Michigan, or “patrolling" polling places is hardly what anyone could define as domestic tranquility. Armed citizens are hardly needed for the common defense, given that we spend what we do on a standing army and defense department and employ hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Again, going back to the sheer volume of deaths and injuries from gun violence, using the 2nd Amendment to block any regulations whatsoever that would serve to reduce the number of shootings certainly reduces the government's ability to provide for the general welfare of the people. And finally, when the 2nd Amendment is used to provide for conceal carry and open carry, as well as guns being prevelant on the streets everywhere, legally and illegally, it actually does restrict our liberty every single time someone does not freely go where they want or do what they want to do because of guns or a reasonable fear of being shot. By that I mean that you may very well be a law abiding, responsible gun owner carrying in the Walmart parking lot. You're just there to shop as I am, but I don't know you, and I, nor anyone else, has any way of knowing whether you are a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun. That is actually only determined once you raise the gun and pull the trigger. At that point, it's a little too late, at least for the first person you shoot. The only way anyone can move about freely without a concern for being shot is if no one within range has a gun, so the presence of a gun does in fact inhibit people's liberty.
Now, since you may not believe the Preamble carries any weight, and therefore do not see any of that as violations of people's rights, so I'll go to the 5th and 14th Amendments, and Due Process. The government is not allowed to deprive someone of life, liberty or property without due process. In effect, that also means the government is not allowed to allow you to deprive me of life, liberty or property, and there is really only one exception to that…the castle doctrine. You are allowed to respond with deadly force, if I enter your home or place of business and you can reasonably conclude that if you don't defend yourself, I will cause death or great bodily harm. What that does not mean is if in that same Walmart parking lot I described earlier, you take my parking spot, I get pissed, wait for you to enter the store, and then begin trashing your car. You come out, see what I am doing and decide you can shoot me. You can't. I'm pissing you off, I am breaking the law, but all you can do is call the police, press charges, whatever. BUT, thanks to extreme readings of the 2nd Amendment, allowing people to carry everywhere, some states creating stand your ground laws, the government has given you tacit or literal permission to violate my rights.
Finally, my whole argument is not actually against guns or gun ownership, and it's not against law abiding gun owners. It is specifically against the 2nd Amendment and the argument people make using it that there can be no restrictions whatsoever. It is against the belief that even someone who is suicidal, has a history of domestic abuse and has been diagnosed with mental illness cannot have their guns taken away. It is against people who believe the 2nd Amendment prohibits universal background checks, waiting periods, age restrictions, registration or training requirements. And all I concluded is that if you truly are a law abiding responsible gun owner, then take an interest in solving the problem of gun violence and stop blocking the attempts by others to do so, because like everything else, including the 2nd Amendment is subject to change or repeal. The Constitution guarantees that is on the table, but the only way that happens is if gun violence continues to escalate. Being part of the solution now, aside from being the morally right thing to do, also seems to be the better bet to make because eventually, if something becomes enough of a problem, it won't just be regulated, it will be taken away. That's not a threat of violence. Whether violence occurs or not is entirely up to the person with the gun and whether they comply with the law or not…and there are lot's of legislative ways to solve the problem without even touching the 2nd Amendment.
I’ll give you the many answers, and it’s long. If you can’t be bothered to read all of it, you have no business owning a gun, because it tells me how irresponsible your are:
in the USA, people don’t acknowledge guns should be used responsibly because they believe they’re allowed to have one regardless. It’s a right to have it, so you could be raging mad, about to blow someone’s head off if you get a gun and finally have your bad day…yet, you can have that gun. Go ahead, take the sniper rifle, which is inherently designed for long-distance, covert acts of murder that we can “fighting enemy combatants” in a war zone. Take the RPG, which will destroy a car or a portion of a building and cause incredible amounts of shrapnel. No, the founding fathers did NOT think people would be insane enough to make that kind of mass-produced firepower marketed to anyone. The story about fifteen kids and a sword? That is a sword, where a flintlock, another swordsman, a man with a pitchfork, or a someone with either a musket, or a bow and some arrows, could all easily take the guy down without any issue of the person with the sword causing harm to more people (unless they had the sword to someone’s throat, chest, or vital organ/blood vessel).
So yes, there was danger, no, they did not anticipate people who could do a cannon’s worth of damage in an instant or spray bullets into more than 200 people in minutes. Think of it like this: do you treat a defective product as perfection when it gets old? No. Is this a document that rewrites itself? No. So it needs changes, and to treat it like it’s words are passed down from god, and like guns and bullets are your blessed instrument of worship, is exactly the problem. Notice that the idea of guns is uttered in the same single sentence as a well-regulated (aka orderly and well-controlled, not just “functioning as intended”, as regulation is a word about control more than function) militia.
So, about these idead: they are not separated into two different sentences. These were lawyers and others of high education who were writing this legally binding document, so they understood that (back then, because line item vetoes were not a legal concept for most nations) a whole line is struck when you make a change to a contract (that’s what it is, a contract, especially a social one), and if it needs to be corrected, not just erased, you rewrite every single detail of it. So, being that it is one sentence, kept in the document that has not seen lines crossed out of it for at least five decades, and even then only primarily to the Preamble and to one amendment, that should tell you, in plain English and legal theory (they haven’t changed that much when it comes to the English language’s grammar rules OR to contract formulae), that the concepts are tied to each other.
tl;dr You do not, in thinking back to the way the doc is written, get to talk about guns without talking about the militia as the context for the guns. Seeing as there are no militias anymore, and they would not, if the founding fathers saw our modern country, be anywhere considered “well-regulated” in how the attitude about one’s responsibilities (or lack thereof) regarding gun usage (not just ownership, but usage, mainly loading and firing them, with some amount of maintenance and storage involved) is, you can bet the idea is you can absolutely limit the kinds of guns used and owned, because as long as you can have them, that would have been enough of a floor for them. The document we call the constitution is literally written by people. It has, numberous times, been re-addressed, as a “living document”. Also, consider our 1st Amendment rights include “redressing of grievances”. You have to ask “what happens if the grievance is about gun usage?” So should we toss out all guns? Should we make it so we cannot change laws and talk to our representatives? Neither should be tossed, but rather, they should be balanced. Limitations without a total ban would be the rational balancing act.
Furthermore, infringement can mean violation, not just limiting, nor undermining. So, two of those three meanings indicate the idea that your government simply cannot take away your right to own some sort of “arms”. Let’s talk “arms” for a moment.
From wikipedia, which I would absolutely trust because people don’t often simply cause some scandalous edit anymore…
“A weapon, arm or armament is any implement or device that can be used with intent to inflict damage or harm. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, and warfare. In broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a tactical, strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary or enemy target.
While ordinary objects – sticks, rocks, bottles, chairs, vehicles – can be used as weapons, many are expressly designed for the purpose; these range from simple implements such as clubs, axes and swords, to complicated modern firearms, tanks, intercontinental ballistic missiles, biological weapons, and cyberweapons. Something that has been re-purposed, converted, or enhanced to become a weapon of war is termed weaponized, such as a weaponized virus or weaponized laser.”
So what would “arms” have meant for the founders? Guns, yes, but same with swords, bows arrows, spears, clubs, knives, warhammers, cannons, powder bombs, etc. Your question fails to grasp at something: the US would never have just relied on guns, primarily flintlocks or pistols, to defend itself. Sabers were still a standard armament of the US and Europe well into the late 1800s, really only stopping to the greatest degree of military usage once WWII rolled around. But airplanes with nukes? No one understood nuclear weaponry in the 1770s, and it took Einstein, Oppenheimer, and so many others, to even attempt that bomb. The calculations were off the charts, estimating even the air would burn in the area, if not the whole world. Nuclear fission was finally calculable to some degree.
Then, someone said to drop it, and if the calculations had truly been right, there would be no humanity after it landed.
So the next question is “do we allow things in law, military or not, that should never be allowed according to anyone?” Yes. If the US population had also understood the calculations, and had seen them, and been told “we’d like to bomb Japan with a new kind of weapon, you know it as the atom bomb, and here’s the calculations of the yield”, no one would have dared to vote for it. It was going to be a literal doomsday if it was correct.
Now tell me: if anyone on a bad day, with a gun and some bullets, all legally purchased, can commit slaughter worse than the sword guy in colonial America, why would you ever choose NOT to prosecute every bit of ownership, usage, sale, manufacture, and other forms of distribution or modification? What moral person says “let people kill each other on bad days, and I’ll even join you when you do”? Not a damn one of them. Life is the truest inviolable HUMAN right, because no other rights matter if you are not alive.
Murder is not a right, or a moral act, and yet, the tools for committing it wantonly are granted by a 200+ year old contract with the people of the USA. That is the very definition of foolishness and immorality. Why is it that a good person can ask people to quit drinking when they know they’re addicted to drinking, yet they should never ask people to quit owning a gun when they’re going to attempt murder? Why would a good person be allowed to warn someone about going to a bar, but they shouldn’t ever be allowed to keep you from having a gun or buying bullets on a bad day? Because laws that are vague can be exploited if you do not allow them to be defined, or if your define them poorly/exploitatively. That is the problem with the 2nd Amendment as a piece of legal documentation.
So, who has the power to change it? Frankly, not the people. Instead, their representatives hold that power. Do you know how likely it is to get a politician, someone rich, detached from ordinary citizens, in bed with business, seated in the government, and granted power and legal protections, to do anything the people they represent want them to do? Impossible save for a recall or simply getting enough people to not vote for them. Which is further thrown into chaos by gerrymandering, something politicians do to ensure their own stay in power (as they have no term limits; the idea of a “career politician” is that they have turned being in office into their lifestyle, not simply a privilegde and then leaving so someone new can step in. This means they can enact long-term efforts to keep everyone out till a recall occurs.)
SO, the distrust the founding fathers had in the people spelled the death of the reasonable idea that people without ownership or title but with great ideas, full of value, could determine their destiny at any moment without a revolution.
And here’s where I’m gonna blow your fucking mind, which you won’t want to hear but need to udnerstand: if you look at the way they were writing the damn thing, the constitution is rife with conflict, ambiguities they knew and could conveniently argue for any position from, but others couldn’t without a proper legal practice. Why would you fear a populace of uneducated people who understand things stated plainly? Because then you cannot exploit them. Why say you have a president, but not a king? Because they villified the King of England, so if you took on his title, you throw everyone for a bad loop. Best to make a new title, one with none of thr villification you tacked onto your foe and that would make you into a hypocrite. Oh, and George happened to perfectly fit the criteria because the founders admired him? Likely to be horse shit. These were people who were trying to get the 2/3rds of loyal English colonials to rebel. What was so important about the idea it was unpopular to rebel, especially if Natives were treated relatively well? They wanted to rule. There wasn’t a 2-term limit till after FDR was president. So what really happened? There was a myth we’ve told, too good to be true, but which has cast the greedy rich people as heroes, and ironically inspired people, not just to do the things they actually would have wanted, but to do the things we tell ourselves they wanted to do, falsely.
If as you say “ Life would seem to be the most basic, fundamental and indisputable right. If the government is prevented from even doing that one basic thing, to the best of its ability by some other portion of the document, how do you reconcile that?” Then explain how we reconcile abortion? Is that not the government failing to protect the most basic, fundamental, and indisputable right? The right to Life.
I don't see that as a failing of the government at all based specifically on the idea that “life" in the case of a fetus is purely an arbitrary idea that some believe. I am admittedly not an expert in the religious aspects of the debate, but my knowledge, even the Bible does not recognize a fetus as a living person, and in the area I am very educated in, our Constitution certainly does not. For those reasons, it is my view that it is a purely personal belief/decision and each person should act accordingly, but it is not a “government issue".
Besides that, if people are truly bothered by abortion, there are MANY far less authoritarian ways to reduce or eliminate the practice that would also be far more effective than simply forcing a woman to give birth against their will. Until those who oppose abortion begin to support all of these other methods the pro-life position really has little to no credibility beyond your right to choose for yourself.
Just clarifying — officially 58 people died (not hundreds) in that horrible event. Best I can find, a little over 400 were shot, but only 58 died. (3 more victims died years later, apparently related to the 2017 shooting, but those 3 have not been added to the official number.) Doesn’t make it any better, but sticking to facts and not hyperbole helps keep any discussion from getting overly emotional.
Sadly, more than double that number were injured in the melee to get out of the path of the shooter.
I don't suppose you have ever read the 2nd amendment because it said “well regulated militia", not “every Joe, Jack, and Barney". It's important to read the whole thing in context.
The founding fathers were not infalible or perfect, they knew that and, that’s why they opened the door to perfecting the constitution, law of laws via amendments, no law is perfect nor should be or stay the same forever, why? Because society evolves and laws that did make sense back then, don’t do it anymore, the second amendment was included for a reason, to avoid tyranny encouraging citizens to get arms and fight the tyrant to restore democracy, that was a very good reason back then, but very improbable to succeed in present times, which btw is a very unlikely scenario, the right to bear arms is not unlimited, but law abiding citizens shouldn’t have any trouble following any regulations for their possession, which isn’t the issue, which is people access to firepower beyond personal defense needs or sport, regulations, those won’t stop possession but misuse of them, which infringe other people’s rights, regulations won’t infringe the right to possess an arm but, could potentially save many lives, due to access to them just for responsible well trained citizens, because right now no amount of guns in civilian hands, vould have any chance, against the armed forces under government control, which had replaced long ago, “well organized militias”.
The only reason the people would have trouble overthrowing their government is due to gun regulation. If they would have fully automatic firearms it would be more probable. So people like you are the problem. We have tyranny is this country today with no recourse due to censorship and now murder of citizens by gestapo. Even if the 2nd amendment wouldn't overthrow the government doenst mean you get to control me sorry.
I would say that people like you are the problem, paranoia seems to be the reason. Then again no amount of automatic arms give you an edge against tanks and, planes, non, but opens wide open the possibilities for people to commit mass killings, which is the reason behind regulations, it’s been established by SC that arms are for self defense, you don’t need a rifle with 100 rounds magazines to accomplish that, that’s totally unreasonable.
Yes but rights are absolute. The amendments are for the process of governments to ensure a more free nation not to restrain the people. The founders held unmovable beliefs but knew the government was not and never would be perfect. Also amendments are the only way not the courts overlooking the constitution
No, they’re not, your rights end when get in conflict with others and thus society as a whole. Amendments are for perfecting laws one way or another, your comment is just your point of view, which is not everyone’s.
Comments
Post a Comment