The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-18-2017, 01:05 PM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Hysteria.

See post #46.
Oh I read it, previous to your posting it and again after you did so. Here is your claim:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Gun bans work. We know they work:
It's short, and in support you offer the link from Snopes. Based on what you've written, it's not possible to discern what you mean when you say "work". If you are saying that "work" = banning guns, then by the reflexive property yes, they work. If you mean something else, you'll have to clarify. From your link however, I do note these passages:
Quote:
While there is no doubt that firearms deaths in Australia have decreased substantially in the years since the implementation of the NFA, how much of that decrease is directly attributable to the NFA is still subject to debate. Much of that debate focuses on the fact that the gun death rate in Australia was already decreasing prior to the time the NFA was introduced:
Quote:
For Australia, a difficulty with determining the effect of the law was that gun deaths were falling in the early 1990s. No study has explained why gun deaths were falling, or why they might be expected to continue to fall. Yet most studies generally assumed that they would have continued to drop without the NFA. Many studies still found strong evidence for a beneficial effect of the law.
And what you also quoted:
Quote:
The rates of various types of violent crimes (sexual assault, kidnapping, homicides of all types) have scarcely changed at all, and while the robbery rate rose substantially in the 1998-2001 timeframe, it dropped below its pre-NFA level by 2004 and has continually declined since then:
(my bold in each of the above)

So let's see - gun deaths fell, but they were already falling and it was assumed they would continue to fall without the NFA. In addition, other violent crime rates remained roughly the same. If you'd clarify what you mean by "work" then I can evaluate your claim.

I am glad to see you're still holding to the idea of national gun bans. It seems like a winning issue so please, continue to advocate for that at every opportunity.

And just to be clear, are you conceding your error about Chicago gun laws?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #52  
Old 02-18-2017, 02:59 PM
Weisshund Weisshund is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
But there is no right not to be offended (which is where the "hate speech" doesn't come in).
hate speech comes in, not because of the words themselves, but because they are usually designed and used to convince others to move against the hated group.
To incite people to violate the hated groups rights.

You could ignore the words themselves, if they were not used to create a hostile environment for you to try to exist in.

There is a difference

a person saying "I don't like niggers"
(no offense to anyone, just a common hateful thing we are all familiar with)
well he is a nimrod, but a harmless one, offensive but harmless.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even when it's wrong.

but a person saying "I hate niggers, we have to round up all the niggers, string them on ropes" and rallying people to that idea and stirring up a violent environment.
Now the words are not only hateful but dangerous and begin to directly violate a person of african ancestory's ability to live a free happy life because some nitwit is inciting people to try tossing ropes around his neck.

Now someone's rights are being violated
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-18-2017, 03:08 PM
Weisshund Weisshund is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizerta View Post
This was prompted by a PBS show on Ruby Ridge.

Americans have the right to bear arms, but I see nothing in the Constitution that determines what arms are allowed, restricted, or inhibited. For example (A) why is a sawed off shotgun illegal? Isn't that an "arm"? (B) automatic weapons. (C) IIRC, felons are not allowed to carry weapons. Is there something in the Constitution that forbids it? (D) 50 years ago, my father had an old shotgun that could hold five rounds. The "law" required him to put a wooden plug in it so that only three rounds could be fired without reloading. (E) If we have the right to bear arms, why can't we just go into a gun store and cash-and-carry? (F) I'm sure I'd think of more if I had the time.
There was no limitation on arms types
If an individual could afford a cannon or a war ship, so be it.
Since the typical person can not foot the bill for those large expensive arms, that usually falls under providing for the common defense i would think.

The founding fathers did not write a specific limited arms type because they did not want any limits that could in the future make it so the constitution could be used as a tool to disarm the people by limiting them to antiquated arms.

Surely no one thinks the founding fathers were so unintelligent as to be unaware of the progression of arms types through the ages?
club gives way to blade, blade is challenged by armor, armor gives way to heavy bow, armor gets heavier, armor gives way to primordial fire arms, which give way to match locks, then flint locks, then percussion caps, then modern types etc.

You would not make it a right for your people to arm and defend themselves against what ever tribulations there may be, and then knowingly limit them in that ability to a tool that you know will at some point be surpassed by something new.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-18-2017, 03:14 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
So let's see - gun deaths fell, but they were already falling and it was assumed they would continue to fall without the NFA. In addition, other violent crime rates remained roughly the same. If you'd clarify what you mean by "work" then I can evaluate your claim.
So...banning guns did NOT increase crime which suggests private ownership of guns plays NO role in preventing or lessening crime.

Gun deaths decreased dramatically after the ban...not just on a slow trend down but plummeted.

So, private gun ownership has no effect on overall crime rates and a ban dramatically lowers deaths by guns.

I fail to see the benefit of having guns be a part of society here. There is almost no upside. It is all downside.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-18-2017 at 03:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-18-2017, 04:10 PM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
So...banning guns did NOT increase crime which suggests private ownership of guns plays NO role in preventing or lessening crime.

Gun deaths decreased dramatically after the ban...not just on a slow trend down but plummeted.

So, private gun ownership has no effect on overall crime rates and a ban dramatically lowers deaths by guns.

I fail to see the benefit of having guns be a part of society here. There is almost no upside. It is all downside.
I'm trying to follow the point you're trying to make. Were you going to respond to these?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
If you'd clarify what you mean by "work" then I can evaluate your claim.
...
And just to be clear, are you conceding your error about Chicago gun laws?
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-18-2017, 04:22 PM
mikecurtis mikecurtis is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'd never considered the possibility before, but I wonder if you could submit an application for a nuclear warhead as a "destructive device". Here is the form you'd use for it (I think I've got this right). I wonder if they'd accept it.

i dont know if owning a nuclear device is prohibited, per se, but using nuclear material to harm or threaten some one is (18 U.S. Code 831 - Prohibited transactions involving nuclear materials)

Quote:
(7) knowingly threatens to use nuclear material or nuclear byproduct material to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person or substantial damage to property or to the environment under circumstances in which the threat may reasonably be understood as an expression of serious purposes;
so you may be able to own one but you could never use it or say you were gonna!

mc

Last edited by mikecurtis; 02-18-2017 at 04:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-18-2017, 04:24 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I'm trying to follow the point you're trying to make. Were you going to respond to these?
You said national gun bans:

"...disarm law abiding people and leave them at the mercy of criminals."

I showed this is provably not true. A point you are dodging.

To answer your questions:

- By "work" I mean fewer people die as a result of crime when a nation severely restricts private gun ownership.

- As to Chicago I will partially concede. I get there were more court cases after McDonald that had to be gotten through. It turns out though that gun ownership in Chicago today is allowed and indeed was little different than other big cities. Be that as it may I do not see what this buys you in the argument.

Quote:
Our regulations are actually similar to those of other major cities, said Roseanna Ander, the founder and executive director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab. The Crime Lab works to reduce violence through scientific analysis and research.

"At this point, we're probably fairly comparable ...," Ander said. "I think in New York and Los Angeles, both cities have pretty restrictive gun laws."

Even in the past, when Chicago had tougher gun regulations, its handgun ban was rivaled by the "restrictive gun laws" of New York and the "onerous" process to get a permit and have a gun in Los Angeles, Ander said.

SOURCE: https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2015...ts-complicated

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-18-2017 at 04:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-18-2017, 04:48 PM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
You said national gun bans:

"...disarm law abiding people and leave them at the mercy of criminals."

I showed this is provably not true. A point you are dodging.
I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with, but we can separate that statement to clarify. Let's see, a gun ban would disarm law abiding people. Do you agree?

It would leave disarmed people at the mercy of criminals. I think this is obviously true, but if you could clarify why you think this is untrue that would help.

Quote:
- By "work" I mean fewer people die as a result of crime when a nation severely restricts private gun ownership.
So your assertion is that as a result of the NFA in Australia, fewer people died as a result of crime than they would have without the NFA - is that a fair interpretation?

Quote:
- As to Chicago I will partially concede. I get there were more court cases after McDonald that had to be gotten through. It turns out though that gun ownership in Chicago today is allowed and indeed was little different than other big cities. Be that as it may I do not see what this buys you in the argument.
Ok. It established the facts upon which we are dealing with. I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree on any subjective thing, but on matters of facts it's important to be clear.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-18-2017, 05:35 PM
Revenant Threshold Revenant Threshold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It would leave disarmed people at the mercy of criminals. I think this is obviously true, but if you could clarify why you think this is untrue that would help.
Why obviously true? A disarmed populace would include criminals, to some extent. The extent is, obviously, debatable to say the least. But disarming criminals means lessening the opportunity for them to put disarmed people at their mercy.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-18-2017, 06:10 PM
Weisshund Weisshund is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
i dont know if owning a nuclear device is prohibited
While the owning if it is not disallowed per say in the 2nd amendment, i think there are a few things which all sane persons could agree upon.

1) The materials themselves, even totally unweaponized are very extremely dangerous
to all around them, immensely fatally dangerous.

2) The general populace does not have the safe facilities to keep this kind of material.

3) As a weapon, the devices are not controllable completely in who or what they harm, even with the most expert of user, and the effects are long lasting and not easily rectified.

4) These weapons would be virtually impossible to deploy in the protection of the state(s) the collateral damage to what is being protected is too great.
Kill the victim to save it from murder.

5) because of the extreme ramifications of using a weapon of this type, it should be something that would be done as a collective than an individual choice.
(Not to mention only when all other choices have been exhausted)

I think we would all agree, that a nuclear device should not be open to individual use and ownership, the risks are too great, even an accident can be a loss of life in the millions.

While it is a weapon and so technically arms, you can do little with it to defend life property your home your state or even your country really, even small tactical nukes are not something you want to go shooting in your own backyard, unless you dont want to live in that backyard anymore.

You can, with proper licensing and proper facilities etc, if you have the cash, build and own a nuclear power station though i believe.
Good luck getting the permits issued though.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 02-18-2017, 08:51 PM
MEBuckner MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,166
Under U.S. federal law:

It's illegal "to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon" (U.S. 18 229) with the penalty being a fine, imprisonment "for any term of years", or both; and the death penalty or imprisonment for life if the violation results in the death of another person (18 U.S.C. 229A).

Any person who "knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, or attempts, threatens, or conspires to do the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both". Additionally, knowingly possessing "any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that, under the circumstances, is not reasonably justified by a prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both" (18 U.S. Code 175).

It's illegal to "knowingly participate in the development of, manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten to use, any atomic weapon" (42 U.S. Code 2122). The penalties for a violation of that section are a fine of "not more than $2,000,000" and "a term of imprisonment not less than 25 years or to imprisonment for life"; and if the violation includes using, attempting or conspiring to use, or possessing and threatening to use an atomic weapon, the imprisonment is bumped up to "not less than 30 years" or life; and if the death of another person results from the violation of 42 U.S. Code 2122, the penalty is imprisonment for life (42 U.S. Code 2272).

(So...if you kill somebody with nerve gas, you can get the death penalty, but if you kill someone with anthrax or a nuclear weapon, then the maximum penalty is life in prison? Now that's odd. Although I'm sure there are other terrorism-related charges that would apply if you set off a nuke on American soil, and some of those would put the death penalty on the table.)

I think it's fairly safe to say that even post-Heller and McDonald, SCOTUS won't likely be striking down any of these laws anytime soon.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-18-2017, 09:12 PM
Weisshund Weisshund is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
(So...if you kill somebody with nerve gas, you can get the death penalty, but if you kill someone with anthrax or a nuclear weapon, then the maximum penalty is life in prison? Now that's odd. Although I'm sure there are other terrorism-related charges that would apply if you set off a nuke on American soil, and some of those would put the death penalty on the table.)
I would think, if you actually kill someone, you would get the above charges, then the murder charges, then a bunch of civil and criminal charges, some kind of war charges, perhaps some kind of world criminal charges, charges of terrorism if you are not a recognized government and serve all sentences sequentially in a concrete box 400 feet underground at some undisclosed location someplace where you would rot until you die, which wont be long because i doubt anyone will feed or water you.

If they didn't hang or shoot you first.

But yes, i find it kind of amusing that one has death penalty the other does not
guess it depended on the time period it came into effect and who wrote it?
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-18-2017, 09:30 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with, but we can separate that statement to clarify. Let's see, a gun ban would disarm law abiding people. Do you agree?
Not even sure what you are on about.

You suggested that a gun ban will only leave criminals with guns and implied the law abiding citizens will be at their mercy which would, in turn, suggest that criminals would run rampant against the unarmed citizens who now have no means to defend themselves.

I have provided evidence that this would not be the case. Your turn to prove I'm wrong.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-18-2017 at 09:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-18-2017, 09:55 PM
Weisshund Weisshund is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Not even sure what you are on about.

You suggested that a gun ban will only leave criminals with guns and implied the law abiding citizens will be at their mercy which would, in turn, suggest that criminals would run rampant against the unarmed citizens who now have no means to defend themselves.

I have provided evidence that this would not be the case. Your turn to prove I'm wrong.
In the united states?
Where some criminal organizations and gangs are armed better than the police and on par with a military infantry unit?

Yes, i can see where that would not fare well, because only the law abiding citizens would turn in the guns, the gangs and criminals surely would not.
And they do not buy these things through the same channels law abiding people do.
And the law already tries like hell to close down those channels to no avail, it's kind of like trying to stop drugs from appearing.

So, i would have to agree that what you create is a situation that i now know that i could break into anyone's home with no fears of being shot in the process.
You can not stop me, the police will not stop me because you wont get them there in time if at all, and it is not actually their job to stop me, it would be impossible for them to.

Maybe if i did not already have an established underground base of arms rivaling that of a small country, it might work up to the point the unarmed citizens need to defend themselves against legal agencies gone rogue anyways.

But not in a situation where i have 6 new AK's 2 cases of frags, and 2 RPG's fresh off the van from Tijuana and you got nothing.

It is easier for me to buy already banned, already illegal weapons that have entered the country illegally and are being sold illegally, than it is for me to go to walmart and buy a 410 shotgun to shoot skeet.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-18-2017, 10:37 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weisshund View Post
In the united states?
Where some criminal organizations and gangs are armed better than the police and on par with a military infantry unit?

Yes, i can see where that would not fare well, because only the law abiding citizens would turn in the guns, the gangs and criminals surely would not.
And they do not buy these things through the same channels law abiding people do.
And the law already tries like hell to close down those channels to no avail, it's kind of like trying to stop drugs from appearing.
Hysteria.

See post #46.

It is amazing how often this mantra repeats.

If you are puzzled how Trumpians can believe, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that 3 million illegal immigrants voted for Clinton in the last election look in a mirror. That's you.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-18-2017 at 10:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-18-2017, 11:05 PM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weisshund View Post
In the united states?
Where some criminal organizations and gangs are armed better than the police and on par with a military infantry unit?

How many people have been killed or injured in crimes committed with light mortars, grenade launchers, recoilless rifles and heavy machineguns?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Weisshund
So, i would have to agree that what you create is a situation that i now know that i could break into anyone's home with no fears of being shot in the process.
But...you do realize there are still law enforcement agencies, right?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole
If you are puzzled how Trumpians can believe, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that 3 million illegal immigrants voted for Clinton in the last election look in a mirror. That's you.
And yet for all their talk of using their guns to "rise up against tyranny", they have no idea what a tyrant looks like.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-19-2017, 11:15 AM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Not even sure what you are on about.
Ok, I thought it was pretty clear but I'll try again. You seem to be contesting my statement so I'm trying to explore which part or parts you are contesting. My statement was comprised two elements. The part you quoted with my question was the first element so it was a question to determine if that was among the things you were contesting. This is the first element: [a national gun ban] 'would disarm law abiding people' .So, what I am asking is if you agree with the first element. Do you? If there were a national gun ban, do you think that law abiding people would then be disarmed [of guns]?

The second element was: 'and leave [law abiding people] at the mercy of criminals.' Do you agree with that element?

I stated two elements, and this is how you've interpreted it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
You suggested that a gun ban will only leave criminals with guns and implied the law abiding citizens will be at their mercy which would, in turn, suggest that criminals would run rampant against the unarmed citizens who now have no means to defend themselves.
In your interpretation, you've added a third element which I've bolded. Not sure why you constructed the strawman, but it's not my assertion. I did not say that violent crime would increase or decrease, or make any statement about the rate of these things. I did say that in the event of violent crime, those that are disarmed would not have firearms as a means to defend themselves.

Quote:
I have provided evidence that this would not be the case. Your turn to prove I'm wrong.
For the sake of argument, no you haven't. First, your own cite describes the difficulty of applying the results if any that were achieved in Australia to the US since the two countries are very different in ways related to firearms and crime. Second, you haven't established a causal link between the Australian NFA and the results that you are claiming. So I'm not saying you are proven wrong, but you haven't established that you are right and the evidence you've provided in your attempt to do so has been weak for reasons already mentioned.

And just so I'm clear on your position, you didn't address this part:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
So your assertion is that as a result of the NFA in Australia, fewer people died as a result of crime than they would have without the NFA - is that a fair interpretation?
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-19-2017, 01:13 PM
Daylate Daylate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weisshund
So, i would have to agree that what you create is a situation that i now know that i could break into anyone's home with no fears of being shot in the process.
But...you do realize there are still law enforcement agencies, right?
You're right, we still would have law enforcement agencies. And just remember, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-19-2017, 06:41 PM
Abatis Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
If we are going with your notion that they could foresee improvements in weapons and understand what that meant I doubt they would have gladly written a protection for arms that would lead to rampant gun violence in US cities. So they didn't, they wrote the amendment to protect ownership when connected with a well regulated militia.

They did not guess everyone would simply ignore what was written though.
But your fanciful theory evaporates when one understands that the 2nd Amendment does not grant / give / create or otherwise establish the right to arms. To argue that words upon which the right in no manner depend, were composed to only sanction limited, approved uses of arms, is absurd and anti-constitutional (irreconcilable with the principle of retained rights).

The fact is, the right has been recognized to exist without reference to the 2nd Amendment (and the Constitution). That SCOTUS has said time and time again (going on 140 years) that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd thus is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution, means your "it's for the militia" fantasy, is bullocks.

Accept what SCOTUS has been boringly consistent on, the right to arms is not -- "in any manner dependent upon [the Constitution] for its existence" -- means the right can not be said to be conditioned upon or qualified by or dependent upon a structure (the militia) that is itself, entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.

Please, just give it up.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-19-2017, 09:00 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Good thing I didn't do that then.
Chefguy may have brought up the argument but you seemed to be advancing it a bit at least.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-19-2017, 09:14 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
So...banning guns did NOT increase crime which suggests private ownership of guns plays NO role in preventing or lessening crime.

Gun deaths decreased dramatically after the ban...not just on a slow trend down but plummeted.

So, private gun ownership has no effect on overall crime rates and a ban dramatically lowers deaths by guns.

I fail to see the benefit of having guns be a part of society here. There is almost no upside. It is all downside.
So how much did the overall murder rate drop from this plummeting gun death rate?

What's that you say? It remained about the same?

The robbery rate increased but because there was already a trend of dropping robbery rates, the robbery rate eventually dropped to below its pre-ban level?
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-20-2017, 01:09 PM
Revenant Threshold Revenant Threshold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
But your fanciful theory evaporates when one understands that the 2nd Amendment does not grant / give / create or otherwise establish the right to arms. To argue that words upon which the right in no manner depend, were composed to only sanction limited, approved uses of arms, is absurd and anti-constitutional (irreconcilable with the principle of retained rights).
I think there's two arguments here.

The point that the text of the 2nd Amendment relies upon the reasoning of the "well regulated militia being necessary" but not contingent upon it seems reasonable to me. It's "this is why", but not, "so long as this is so then this". It's a statement, not a requirement.

The other argument, of course, is that judging by that statement, it's also reasonable to say that the why which existed at the time of the writing and which the writers would be thinking of doesn't exist any more, or, at least, isn't taken advantage of.

So, to my mind, it's fair to say "The well regulated militia being necessary makes no difference at all as to whether there is a right to bear arms; but the basis for that right as originally conceived does not seem to exist any more." Which, of course, doesn't mean there is no other basis or need.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 02-20-2017, 01:11 PM
Revenant Threshold Revenant Threshold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daylate View Post
You're right, we still would have law enforcement agencies. And just remember, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".
"When seconds count, your assailant already has a gun because they obtained it legally" seems less catchy but as potentially accurate.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-20-2017, 06:44 PM
Abatis Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
The point that the text of the 2nd Amendment relies upon the reasoning of the "well regulated militia being necessary" but not contingent upon it seems reasonable to me.
I see the declaratory clause as a statement of principle that aligns with the statements commonly found in state RKBA provisions. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, "as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up." To the framers each represented the same sentiment . . .

The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim of a republic, that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
It's "this is why", but not, "so long as this is so then this". It's a statement, not a requirement.
Well for me the declaratory clause can only be said to be a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists and as such it can not qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right; it only states one reason (a political one) why the never surrendered / fully retained right is being forever shielded from federal government interference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
The other argument, of course, is that judging by that statement, it's also reasonable to say that the why which existed at the time of the writing and which the writers would be thinking of doesn't exist any more, or, at least, isn't taken advantage of.
To me it does exist and it is being kept up. The 2nd Amendment's prohibition on the government disarming the citizenry forever preserves the numerical superiority of armed citizens to standing army soldiers . . . Which ensures that the people can enforce any rescinding of their consent to be governed.

Back in 1788, Madison said that if the nation could maintain an army that comprised 1% of the population, those troops would be opposed by armed citizens 17 to 1. Today, with active duty and reserve armed forces numbering about 2.8 million, our 75 million armed citizens outnumber the "standing army" by 27 to 1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
So, to my mind, it's fair to say "The well regulated militia being necessary makes no difference at all as to whether there is a right to bear arms; but the basis for that right as originally conceived does not seem to exist any more." Which, of course, doesn't mean there is no other basis or need.
But again, the right wasn't "conceived", the right to arms doesn't exist because the 2nd Amendment is there or what i says, the right exists and is possessed by the citizen because no power was ever granted by "We the People" to the federal government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of he private citizen.


.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 02-21-2017, 12:02 PM
Revenant Threshold Revenant Threshold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
I see the declaratory clause as a statement of principle that aligns with the statements commonly found in state RKBA provisions. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, "as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up." To the framers each represented the same sentiment . . .

The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim of a republic, that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).
I'm not sure I'd say that this was a "universally understood and acepted maxim of a republic", given that my understanding is that historically speaking the US had a large role in defining those republican maxims, along with France. My republican history knowledge isn't great, however. Do you have some cites for this point?
Quote:
Well for me the declaratory clause can only be said to be a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists and as such it can not qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right; it only states one reason (a political one) why the never surrendered / fully retained right is being forever shielded from federal government interference.
That seems illogical to me. If there's a pre-existing reason, then point out the pre-existing reason - or point to the Ninth Amendment. You don't need a new reason if there already is one. No, it makes more sense to me to say that this was the, or at least the prime, reason for the 2nd Amendment's existence. Beyond that point we'd have to assume poor writing on the part of the writers, which, besides likely not being too popular, brings the whole question of trying to identify motives from the text into question.
Quote:
To me it does exist and it is being kept up. The 2nd Amendment's prohibition on the government disarming the citizenry forever preserves the numerical superiority of armed citizens to standing army soldiers . . . Which ensures that the people can enforce any rescinding of their consent to be governed.
No, it doesn't; the legality of conscription would seem to put paid to that notion.
Quote:
Back in 1788, Madison said that if the nation could maintain an army that comprised 1% of the population, those troops would be opposed by armed citizens 17 to 1. Today, with active duty and reserve armed forces numbering about 2.8 million, our 75 million armed citizens outnumber the "standing army" by 27 to 1.
.....if they were allayed against each other. There's zero guarantee so far as I can tell that "the people" would not arrange themselves alongside the soldiery so as to abrogate even their own rights, let alone the rights of some minority. History is replete with examples of dictactors and tyrants taking over a nation with the backing of the military.... and the willing populace.
Quote:
But again, the right wasn't "conceived", the right to arms doesn't exist because the 2nd Amendment is there or what i says, the right exists and is possessed by the citizen because no power was ever granted by "We the People" to the federal government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of he private citizen.
The right as defined in the 2nd was conceived. Otherwise there would be no need to have the 2nd Amendment. You can of course talk about individual rights pre-government, but absent the 2nd those rights are significantly more constrainable; a big difference.

And personally I don't believe in any rights that don't come from some agreement between parties. As a concept it doesn't really make sense to me.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 02-21-2017, 01:55 PM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
And personally I don't believe in any rights that don't come from some agreement between parties. As a concept it doesn't really make sense to me.
The constitution of the United States and the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 02-21-2017, 02:07 PM
Revenant Threshold Revenant Threshold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Yes, indeed! You'll note I put "personally" in there to indicate this was a "personal" opinion. And that I referred to the Ninth Amendment in that same post in a discussion of rights not enumerated by the government still existing.

So; yes. Obviously. My post relies upon that. What was your point? That my opinion doesn't matter? Sure, I'd be the first to say so. In fact, I was.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 02-21-2017, 02:32 PM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
So; yes. Obviously. My post relies upon that. What was your point? That my opinion doesn't matter? Sure, I'd be the first to say so. In fact, I was.
I should have fleshed that out further. In your previous post #75, you make several statements that imply this understanding isn't the correct one. I started to mentally construct a response to each, but it grew convoluted because it's like interjecting into the middle of an ongoing conversation.

For example, you question the universal understood maxim of the republic as it relates to an armed citizenry. But since this is discussed in Federalist 46, and was known in the English Bill of Rights in 1689, and it's how the Constitution was drafted and its Bill of Rights were constructed, understanding that this is the case would seem to rebut your earlier notion that it wasn't an understood maxim.

I also clipped the earlier statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
The right as defined in the 2nd was conceived. Otherwise there would be no need to have the 2nd Amendment. You can of course talk about individual rights pre-government, but absent the 2nd those rights are significantly more constrainable; a big difference.
This section is not prefaced as your personal opinion and this the Constitution and the Supreme Court also disagrees with. The right as defined in the 2nd was and is pre-existing.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 02-21-2017, 03:40 PM
Revenant Threshold Revenant Threshold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I should have fleshed that out further. In your previous post #75, you make several statements that imply this understanding isn't the correct one. I started to mentally construct a response to each, but it grew convoluted because it's like interjecting into the middle of an ongoing conversation.

For example, you question the universal understood maxim of the republic as it relates to an armed citizenry. But since this is discussed in Federalist 46, and was known in the English Bill of Rights in 1689, and it's how the Constitution was drafted and its Bill of Rights were constructed, understanding that this is the case would seem to rebut your earlier notion that it wasn't an understood maxim. Shortening it to simply "understood maxim" isn't quite fair.
The original wording, per Abatis, was "universally understood and accepted maxim of a republic". An example from a country that wasn't a republic, and an example of the nation and times currently under discussion, don't seem to back up the statement I was curious about.
Quote:
I also clipped the earlier statement:

This section is not prefaced as your personal opinion and this the Constitution and the Supreme Court also disagrees with. The right as defined in the 2nd was and is pre-existing.
Not so far as I can tell; the 2nd forbids the state from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The right to protection from the government from stopping people owning or using arms isn't pre-established, at least so far as I know; Abatis seems to be saying that the right to own or use arms exists because the government has made no law against it, which is quite a different right. Essentially, it's the difference between "We haven't said anything, so you can do as you please." and "We've affirmatively said we cannot change this thing to make it so you can't do as you please." Liberty because we haven't said no, vs. liberty because we're guaranteeing you're safe from us saying no in the future.

Last edited by Revenant Threshold; 02-21-2017 at 03:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 02-21-2017, 03:52 PM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
The right to protection from the government from stopping people owning or using arms isn't pre-established, at least so far as I know; Abatis seems to be saying that the right to own or use arms exists because the government has made no law against it, which is quite a different right. Essentially, it's the difference between "We haven't said anything, so you can do as you please." and "We've affirmatively said we cannot change this thing to make it so you can't do as you please." Liberty because we haven't said no, vs. liberty because we're guaranteeing you're safe from us saying no in the future.
Abatis is not saying that this right exists because the government has made no law against it - that's not the correct way to interpret the 2nd. The 2nd amendment recognizes a pre-existing right. It does say something, one of those things is that the right already existed. That's what the constitution says. That's what SCOTUS has said. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

Last edited by Bone; 02-21-2017 at 03:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 02-21-2017, 04:01 PM
Revenant Threshold Revenant Threshold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Abatis is not saying that this right exists because the government has made no law against it - that's not the correct way to interpret the 2nd.
Pardon; looking back at my post, you're quite correct, I phrased that very badly. Let me give it another go; Abatis is saying (if I read them correctly) that the right exists because people in general have the right to do whatever, so long as there's no law against it. The right exists because people just have these rights. That's why I was talking about my own personal view which is that I don't get that; I've seen people talking about "natural rights" (which I think is the kind of thing Abatis means) before, and I disagree with the idea. Or at least think it makes no sense.
Quote:
The 2nd amendment recognizes a pre-existing right. It does say something, one of those things is that the right already existed. That's what the constitution says. That's what SCOTUS has said. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.
And those things are separate but linked. The right as defined in the 2nd Amendment is that the government may make no law infringing on the right of the people to own or bear arms. That's the purpose of it; to provide that protection. That's the right that it defines.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 02-21-2017, 05:34 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
Well for me the declaratory clause can only be said to be a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists and as such it can not qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right; it only states one reason (a political one) why the never surrendered / fully retained right is being forever shielded from federal government interference.
Of course it can. It can mean whatever the SCOTUS says it means. So far they have supported gun rights but that could change someday. As it stands that right is circumscribed same as any other right granted in the constitution. This thread asks what "arms" means and in the FFs day that was any weapon whatsoever. Obviously that is no longer true today. Where those restrictions lie is up to the SCOTUS.

It takes some tortured logic to ignore that statement in the second amendment. Scalia in Heller twisted the language into a pretzel to get around it. The language is there. Nowhere else in the constitution (excepting the preamble) did the FFs engage in rhetorical flourishes. Nowhere else did they provide a reason for any of the other bits. Why, in this one case, would they do that? Just slipped the editing process?

Also, it seems a bit odd that the ONE thing the FFs wanted to be sure all Americans had was a gun.


Quote:
To me it does exist and it is being kept up. The 2nd Amendment's prohibition on the government disarming the citizenry forever preserves the numerical superiority of armed citizens to standing army soldiers . . . Which ensures that the people can enforce any rescinding of their consent to be governed.

Back in 1788, Madison said that if the nation could maintain an army that comprised 1% of the population, those troops would be opposed by armed citizens 17 to 1. Today, with active duty and reserve armed forces numbering about 2.8 million, our 75 million armed citizens outnumber the "standing army" by 27 to 1.
Pure weekend warrior fantasy.

If it comes down to the citizens versus the US military the citizens are well and truly fucked. It wouldn't even be close.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-21-2017 at 05:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 02-21-2017, 08:10 PM
Falchion Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
It takes some tortured logic to ignore that statement in the second amendment. Scalia in Heller twisted the language into a pretzel to get around it. The language is there. Nowhere else in the constitution (excepting the preamble) did the FFs engage in rhetorical flourishes. Nowhere else did they provide a reason for any of the other bits. Why, in this one case, would they do that? Just slipped the editing process?
You would agree, I presume, that the IP clause limits copyrights and patents to those works that "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"?

You would further agree, I presume, that the only way in which the federal government is permitted to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" is by issuing patents and copyrights?
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 02-22-2017, 08:32 AM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
I want to arm bears, dammit. Give those big game hunters something to think about.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 02-22-2017, 09:24 AM
Abatis Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
I'm not sure I'd say that this was a "universally understood and acepted maxim of a republic", given that my understanding is that historically speaking the US had a large role in defining those republican maxims, along with France. My republican history knowledge isn't great, however. Do you have some cites for this point?
The idea goes back a couple thousand years, to Aristotle. Aristotle's form of government included a large middle class in which each citizen fulfilled all three functions of self legislation, arms bearing and working.

Aristotle criticizes the constitution of Plato's Laws because, despite its suffrage, it was oligarchical, one of its central features was a disarmed populace. According to Aristotle, "there are many things which Socrates left undetermined; are farmers and craftsmen to have no share in government . . .? Are they or are they not to possess arms . . .?"

The legal restriction of arms bearing to only the class entrusted with defense would lead to oppression by that class. "[T]he farmers have no arms, the workers have neither land nor arms; this makes them virtually the servants of those who possess arms In these circumstances the equal sharing of offices and honours becomes an impossibility."

It was further explained in the treatises of Locke, Sidney, Montesquieu and Rousseau, which had a more immediate impact on the founders / framers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
That seems illogical to me. If there's a pre-existing reason, then point out the pre-existing reason - or point to the Ninth Amendment. You don't need a new reason if there already is one. No, it makes more sense to me to say that this was the, or at least the prime, reason for the 2nd Amendment's existence.
It isn't expressing a "new" reason. You need to remember the impetus and origin of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. The anti-Federalists and the states demanded a bill of rights and once the Federalists gave in, the states offered their proposals which Madison edited / refined and presented to Congress. The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms in state constitutions was usually grouped with admonishments against standing armies and civil authorities always having power over the military. These all had the intent of limiting governmental power in military affairs and effect. The 2nd Amendment as it reads is a product of that (which I alluded to and you quoted but did not comment on).

The 9th and 10th Amendments were consolation prizes for the Federalists for surrendering their opposition to adding a bill of rights. They are recognition of Federalist argument that for the federal Constitution, a bill of rights would be dangerous and absurd. They stand as primers on constitutional interpretation, not substantive claims of liberty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
Beyond that point we'd have to assume poor writing on the part of the writers, which, besides likely not being too popular, brings the whole question of trying to identify motives from the text into question.
And that you feel that way proves that the Federalists arguments against adding a bill of rights were on point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
No, it doesn't; the legality of conscription would seem to put paid to that notion.
Over time, Madison's "1% of the total population" has proven to be the limit of government's ability to maintain / provide for a standing army. As Madison noted that is "1/25th the number able to bear arms" with (in 1788) 3/4 of them "having arms in their hands".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
.....if they were allayed against each other. There's zero guarantee so far as I can tell that "the people" would not arrange themselves alongside the soldiery so as to abrogate even their own rights, let alone the rights of some minority.
I am just relating the arguments of Madison. The conflict between the federal and state governments and between all government and the citizen was an all encompassing theme of the Constitution and bill of rights ratification period. The idea of a general militia was always geared towards resisting oppressive government action and defending the liberty of the people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
History is replete with examples of dictactors and tyrants taking over a nation with the backing of the military.... and the willing populace.
The difference in America was the acceptance of self-evident truths that the government is instituted to protect the inherent rights of the people and it is a duty of the people to throw off any government that violates the principles of its establishment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
The right as defined in the 2nd was conceived. Otherwise there would be no need to have the 2nd Amendment.
I would suggest you read Federalist 84. The 2nd Amendment (along with the 1st) is a redundant prohibition on government re-affirming that it can not exercise powers it was never granted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
You can of course talk about individual rights pre-government, but absent the 2nd those rights are significantly more constrainable; a big difference.
As Hamilton said in Federalist 84, arguing that adding a bill of rights to the constitution was unnecessary, dangerous and absurd:
"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
The argument was, government can only legitimately exercise the express powers granted to it and only to perform the duties assigned to it. The action of listing various liberty interests NOT included in the compact, would lead some to think that a power can be conjured to impact those interests through inventive reading of the provisions intended only to bind government -- and that those interests not listed fall within the domain of government.

IOW, If you hire a handyman and assign him just the tacks of a handyman, do you really need to tell him he can't dictate to you what you can read, or what you can say or what God you can worship or what gun you can own?

We see the Federalist fears come alive WRT the 2nd Amendment . . . the inventive readings and redefining of words, trying to invent power where none exists, is exactly why the Federalists resisted adding a bill of rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
And personally I don't believe in any rights that don't come from some agreement between parties. As a concept it doesn't really make sense to me.
Feel free to personally reject the concept of inherent rights but in the USA we have a contract that demands all government to treat our fundamental rights as originating from another plane, above the legislative actions of man.

I find it interesting that you make mention of the 9th Amendment in one breath and then denounce the singular principle it exists to explain in the next breath . . .
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 02-22-2017, 10:25 AM
Abatis Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
Abatis is saying (if I read them correctly) that the right exists because people in general have the right to do whatever, so long as there's no law against it. The right exists because people just have these rights.
Our system is based upon the principle that all power originally resides in the people. The people come together and decide upon certain foundational principles and surrender limited amounts of their power and assign government certain duties. This doctrine comes directly from Locke and Sidney and Hutchenson. All power not conferred is retained and those retained powers are then defined as rights. Some power was granted to the feds, some power is granted to the states, some powers are withheld from both governments and stand as immunities from both governments, rights -- exceptions of powers not granted -- retained by the people.

State constitutions, especially from the early states, are interesting. the first sections of Article I begins with statements of principle on the sovereignty of the people and holding that all governmental power emanates from the people. Article I proceeds to except out the rights of the people from the constitution BEFORE A SINGLE POWER IS GRANTED.

Here's the constitution of my state, Pennsylvania, just as an example.

It hardly seems reasonable to argue that the states all ratified a federal constitution that violated those principles and allowed the feds to amass undefined and ever expanding powers at the detriment of the states and the citizens of their states.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
The right as defined in the 2nd Amendment is that the government may make no law infringing on the right of the people to own or bear arms. That's the purpose of it; to provide that protection. That's the right that it defines.
But SCOTUS, which tells us what the Constitution means and what it does has rejected that theory in boringly consistent fashion for going on 140 years (internal quotation marks removed):

SCOTUS 1876: "The right . . . of bearing arms for a lawful purpose . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; . . . "

SCOTUS 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "

SCOTUS 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed. As we said in . . . 1876 . . . , [t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "
The prohibition on government acting exists with or without the 2nd Amendment . . . which SCOTUS notes in Presser:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms,".
And now we are back again to what a republican form of government is and what the Constitution forces with its promise to forever provide a republican form of government. Here it means the states are forbidden to disarm its citizens -- even without reference to the 2nd Amendment.

So much for incorporation!

.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 02-22-2017, 10:30 AM
AHunter3 AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 18,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizerta View Post
This was prompted by a PBS show on Ruby Ridge.

Americans have the right to bear arms, but I see nothing in the Constitution that determines what arms are allowed, restricted, or inhibited. For example (A) why is a sawed off shotgun illegal? Isn't that an "arm"? (B) automatic weapons. (C) IIRC, felons are not allowed to carry weapons. Is there something in the Constitution that forbids it? (D) 50 years ago, my father had an old shotgun that could hold five rounds. The "law" required him to put a wooden plug in it so that only three rounds could be fired without reloading. (E) If we have the right to bear arms, why can't we just go into a gun store and cash-and-carry? (F) I'm sure I'd think of more if I had the time.
G) My own tactical thermonuclear warhead. Hey, if everyone had one, we'd finally learn to live in peace and treat each other fairly, right?
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 02-22-2017, 11:10 AM
Abatis Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Of course it can. It can mean whatever the SCOTUS says it means. So far they have supported gun rights but that could change someday.
I doubt it. SCOTUS would need to completely reconstruct the rights theory it has operated under since its inception. Your side loves to dissect the RKBA out of the Bill of Rights and treat it like an outlier or orphan but it isn't. I make the argument that the left's hostility for the RKBA will draw into question the recognition of the right to privacy (and the derivative abortion, contraception and LGBTQ rights) and the mechanisms for its protection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
As it stands that right is circumscribed same as any other right granted in the constitution.
Not granted thus not subject to the Supreme Court manipulation. I don't need any judge to tell me what my rights are; his job is to inspect the law, hold it to the Constitution and decide whether the law exceeds the defined and limited powers granted to the legislature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
This thread asks what "arms" means and in the FFs day that was any weapon whatsoever. Obviously that is no longer true today. Where those restrictions lie is up to the SCOTUS.
Which they have decided. US v Miller articulated those protection criteria (or tests) that the Supreme Court uses to determine if an arm is beyond the reach of government. The arm must be shown to be of the type:
In common use at the time by the general citiznry and
that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or
that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.
If the type of arm meets any one of these criteria the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and the authority claimed by government to restrict its possession and use must be repelled. (The characterization "dangerous and unusual" can only be argued for, AFTER the arm fails all the protection criteria)

In Heller, SCOTUS only used one of those criteria to strike down the DC statutes; they held that handguns are in common use at the time by the general citizenry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
It takes some tortured logic to ignore that statement in the second amendment.
No, it just demands we accept the foundational principles of the Constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Scalia in Heller twisted the language into a pretzel to get around it.
Scalia did not upset SCOTUS precedent. He did not disturb or twist anything. The twisting and pretzelling was done in the lower federal courts that ignored and dismissed SCOUTS and inserted the "militia right" and "state's right" theories into the federal courts in 1942.

Heller, by re-affirming the individual right, invalidated those lower court opinions -- U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) and Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) and their progeny. Lower, circuit and district court decisions are not precedent for SCOTUS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
The language is there. Nowhere else in the constitution (excepting the preamble) did the FFs engage in rhetorical flourishes. Nowhere else did they provide a reason for any of the other bits. Why, in this one case, would they do that? Just slipped the editing process?
A theory which only makes sense if the right is being granted, given, created or established by the 2nd Amendment. Since the 2ndA only recognizes the right and says it shall not be infringed, all your jabberwocky is meaningless (but serves to show how prescient the Federalists were).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Also, it seems a bit odd that the ONE thing the FFs wanted to be sure all Americans had was a gun.
Since "We the People" chose not to grant the "FFs" any power to conjure a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen, your point (whatever it is) has no merit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Pure weekend warrior fantasy.
Take your argument to James Madison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
If it comes down to the citizens versus the US military the citizens are well and truly fucked. It wouldn't even be close.
Perhaps. I know I wouldn't want to live in an "America" when the government has killed all those willing to fight it . . . Like it would hold elections and care about what the people want . . . Why would it?

.

Last edited by Abatis; 02-22-2017 at 11:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 02-24-2017, 10:07 PM
Weisshund Weisshund is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
If you are puzzled how Trumpians can believe, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that 3 million illegal immigrants voted for Clinton in the last election look in a mirror. That's you.
Why would anyone except some rubes picked out to look great for a TV slot believe that?
Illegal immigrants can not vote for anyone in a federal election.
Be a little bit hard for 3 million of them to sneak in being that they wouldn't be listed in the computer.

And it's hard to hide 3 million guys in a voting booth
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 02-24-2017, 10:36 PM
Weisshund Weisshund is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Pure weekend warrior fantasy.

If it comes down to the citizens versus the US military the citizens are well and truly fucked. It wouldn't even be close.
No.
You see that is not what it would come down to if that day came.

It would come down to some government officials, and a very small fraction of the US armed forces.

The majority of the US Armed Forces would be with your weekend warrior group.
You may doubt that if you wish, but before you do, you might want to start asking a large amount of US Military personnel, because they are not going to agree with you.
I'd guess most of the government officials would be standing in the weekend warrior group as well.

It's going to be a crowded group, hope they have enough coffee and donuts for 200 odd million.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 02-24-2017, 11:42 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weisshund View Post
It would come down to some government officials, and a very small fraction of the US armed forces.

The majority of the US Armed Forces would be with your weekend warrior group.
If the majority of the military opposes the small fraction of the government run amok you do not need weekend warriors. It's over before it started.

At the end of the day laws only work because there is an enforcement mechanism. Andrew Jackson probably never said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." But he did ignore a Supreme Court order and what happened to him? Nothing.

I am even willing to bet the military would want to keep weekend warriors out of it. They'd just get in the way.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.