A Question for Gun Owners

Great Debates
21

Gadarene said:

I would agree that it is easier to compare guns and cars because they are similar: They’re both things that we’re trying to regulate, as opposed to the ephemeral concept of voting.

But the big difference is in how they’re treated in the Constitution. Driving is not a Constitutionally-guaranteed right, while both voting and gun ownership are. That’s the comparison I was making. I wasn’t comparing things to things; rather, I was doing a rights-to-rights deal. Constitutionally enumerated rights should, in my opinion, be treated the same. Thus, since you cannot restrict voting to those who can pass a test or pay a fee, guns ownership should be similarly unrestricted.

Ptahlis, I wouldn’t have a problem with mandatory gun safety instruction, as long as it was paid for by tax dollars (Holy crap! I can’t believe I just advocated a government program!). I don’t think that individuals should be compelled to pay in order to exercise their rights.

Gadarene, ss far as the phrase well-regulated goes, I’d like to think that gun registration could be part of that. I also think that ownership rolls should be public. Registration is one of the concessions I would make to accommodate the right. And I think that it makes sense for gun owners’ names to be public. That way, if worst comes to worst, and the Second Amendment has to perform the function for which it was intended (citizens defending their life and liberty from a foreign power or their own government), other citizen fighters would know who to call upon for assistance. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.

As far as the whole registration leads to confiscation argument, I think there’s logic in it. The government does tend to treat registries as a way to crack down on those it doesn’t like/disagrees with/wants to take rights from. But the argument is equal parts paranoia and realism. I guess my (admittedly utopian) idea would be for everyone to register their guns, take classes for their safe and productive usage, and for the government to respect the Constitution and a citizen’s privacy, instead of subverting and trampling on them.

22

Gadarene: I hope that my post gave you no offense, for I did not intend any It simply is a valuable distinction especially in dealing with me on this subject. As a person who teaches self defense both armed and unarmed, and deals extensively with the mindset aspect of self defense I feel that there are plenty of good reasons for a person not to own a gun. It is apt for the gov’t to assist in making sure that people who are ill-prepared for gun ownership to not own guns. This in my opinion includes mandatory education and testing as a precursor and as periodic check on the suitability of the person who wishes to own this self defense tool for self defense (those who do not wish to own such for self defense should be constrained to keeping their pistols at a firing range). This also includes background checks. This includes preventing convicted felons from owning guns. But all of this, as above, is, in my opinion, prohibited or at least frowned on by the 2nd. Which is why I commonly say , I am no friend of the 2nd amendment.

And I should point out that testing the suitability is not necessarily a difficult thing. I do it everyday in my dojo. I will not train the stupid or the reckless. As my friends and I say “The problem is there are too many idiots with karate”. The same is true for the gun. If I can spot them then certainly other people can. This is not a special, unique ability I have. It is simply a matter of understanding the nature of the beast.

On the other hand, I am not confident in the slightest in the govt’s ability to actually properly regulate gun ownership. I do feel that they will use regulation, especially mandatory training to slowly eradicate gun ownership by making it too expensive or too difficult for anybody to own a gun.

23

Gadarene wrote:

The phrase “well-regulated militia” means the same to me as it does to the Federal courts: A body of citizens banded together, by and under the direction of the State government, for the purpose of fighting.

It shouldn’t. It was the justification clause of the Amendment, not the operative clause. If I passed a Constitutional Amdnement that said, “Because babies are cute, the right of children to wear Easter bonnets shall not be infringed”, that Amendment would cover all children – not just babies, and not just cute ones.

24

My only question is whether or not you consider the background checks engendered by waiting periods to be due cause to justify the infringement. (Or do you think the background checks exacerbate the infringement?)

I seriously doubt that it really takes 2 weeks, or even 5 days, to do a proper background check. IIRC, the government was supposed to have some sort of “insta-check” system set up, which would allow state and local governments to quickly and easily determine if a person is eligible to buy a gun (I think it was a provision of the Brady Law, but I’m not sure). There is no justification for requiring people to wait longer than is necessary to run a background check.

25

If that’s the case, why does no other Amendment in the Bill of Rights (or the rest of the Constitution, IIRC) contain a justification clause? Or, conversely, why didn’t the text of the Second Amendment simply read, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? Are you contending that the Framers envisioned a gun-owning citizenry, any one of whom, as long as they were not part of a militia, could not be regulated? I’d suggest you read the relevant portions of Garry Wills’ A Necessary Evil.

(Incidentally, tracer, I’m still interested in a clarification on the Ford Pinto case from the drug companies thread. E-mail me, if you like.)

26

Gadarene: why did you ask me those questions, then not reply to mine?

The “well regulated Militia” consisted of every able-bodied gun owning Citizen (note, slave, servant, and Felons, were not Citizens, per se). There is a Militia Act, passed about the same time as the Bill of rights, which defines 'Militia" (about as I have). And there were more than “State” Militias. There were City & civic group Militias. The current “State Militia =National guard” idea would horrify the Founding Fathers, as the National guard is really just the Reserve. It appeared that owning a gun, mad you a member of the Militai, and thus you were REQUIRED to turn out in case of emergencies, ie the Right gave you the Responsibilty.

As for waiting periods–what use are they, except to harrass & annoy law abiding gun owners? It has been shown that the so-called “instant check” is more effective in perevnting Felons, etc from buying guns, and the NRA even promtes the idea. The NRA wants guns in the hands of criminals even less than the anti-gun crowd, note.

Tests, etc, to show you are capable of safe Gun use have also been promoted by the NRA, in fact they run a lot of them. But, if you let some local gov’t decide the requirements, they will use that as an opportunity to bar gun ownership thru the back door.

Registration, as a “post-Facto” gun “control” is of no use, doubtful leaglity, and will and has always been used to confiscate guns, in the end.

England had no gun control, except “carry laws” until the 20th century. Handguns were 1st registered, then required to keep at police stations & shooting galleries, many were confiscated.

If “reasonable” gun control laws, were enforced & passed only by “reasonable” politicans, they might be OK, but they are usually used as back-door “camel-nose” gun banning. HCI works hard for “reasonable” laws, but admits these are only a waystation along the road to their goal: NO private ownershipo of ANY gun.

27

Gadarene asked:

From http://www.gunsafety.org/secondamendment.html:

28

FWIW- I don’t claim that this was in the thoughts of the drafters of the laws mind you, but an argument I have heard put forth on the usefulness of the waiting period was that it deterred crimes of passion. The justification used was that a person incensed over something enough to murder might drive to a store, buy a gun, then go do the deed while still in the grip of emotion. But a waiting period would allow this same person to cool off and reconsider.

29

I’ve heard that argument, and while it is theoretically valid, it has two major flaws:

  1. There are plenty of other ways of killing someone

  2. The waiting period might just give the person time to plan the killing more carefully.

1-6, surely, although few people argue for a need for grenade launchers. The constitution is clear, but so are the needs of society. The constitution must be changed, as those needs outweigh the designers’ intent.

I would like to poin out that you have to be very careful when talking about sacrificing individual rights for the benefit of society. After all, didn’t Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Castro believe they were benefiting society by commiting the horrors that they did?

And another thing: Owning and using a weapon in a safe, responsible manner, whether it is a revolver or a bazooka, does not cause society any harm.

30

Ptahlis wrote

I’ve heard this argument too. Thing is, there’s also a downside to the waiting period. If someone’s life is threatened (from, say, a vindictive jilted spouse), and that person rightly feels that (s)he might be killed if unable to defend her/himself, the waiting period requires her/him to be unarmed for several days before (s)he can obtain a tool of personal protection.

31

Most Psychiatrists would agree that the “Homicidal rage” lasts only a brief time, and if someone drives to the Gunstore, picks out a gun, fills out all the paperwork, and then drives back to kill someone, the “rage” is over. Not that this doesn’t happen, but not during a “Homicidal rage”. In fact a term used is “MOMENT of Rage”. If youre going to kill someone after all that, then waiting 5 or 10 days isn’t going to help. Note that the promoters of the waiting period did not have the (professional opinion) backing of a long list of criminal Psychiatrists.

Gadarene, I am assuming that you will answer my quetions?

32

I will, Daniel…my apologies for the delay. I was gonna address this thread tonight, but I got into a protracted phone discussion with my dad about the utter idiocy of Oregon’s supermajority law. You know, the one which requires 50 percent voter turnout in order to pass any measure which requires an outlay of tax dollars? (School bonds, tax levies, library, public transportation, and sewer bonds…) So the measure is overwhelmingly favored among those who vote, yet only 40 percent of the registered voters turn out, the measure fails. And since it’s virtually impossible to get 50 percent voter turnout for a state election, more so when the presidential nominations have already been wrapped up… Sorry, sorry, topic for another thread. But that’s what’s been on my mind, and I promise I’ll answer your questions on the morrow.

Great discussion, everyone. tracer, drive-by question: does anything you’ve read hazard a guess as to why the Second Amendment was the only one in the Bill of Rights to have that apparently vestigial first clause?

33

Simple question: What percentage of the American people support banning and confiscating all guns?

34

Sqweels said:

I can’t speak for the entire United States, but I know that the Boulder Daily Camera recently did a poll asking approximately that same question, and the numbers were something like 90 percent against taking away gun rights. And this is in Boulder, remember. 20 square miles surrounded by reality, and one of the liberal hotbeds of the US.

35

Necros, I think that’s the point. Saying, as Daniel does, that the ultimate goal of gun control is eliminating the private ownership of all guns, is just constructing a monstrous straw man. It’s not a valid debating point, since (almost literally) no one in this country would advocate the present or future confiscation of privately-owned guns. What’s at issue, usually, is the degree to which such gun ownership can constitutionally be regulated. That’s why I asked my original question–I wanted to see to what extent gun owners viewed the Second Amendment as a unilateral dispensation to own firearms. So far, it seems that gun control opponents view that amendment’s dispensations far more comprehensively than gun control proponents view its restrictions. It’s interesting.

Daniel: I’m gettin’ there. :smiley:

36

As for the first point, there will always be other ways to kill someone. However, a gun makes the job much easier because it is powerful, difficult to counter, and easily obtainable.

I am not arguing for waiting periods because they seem to be an unnecessary and unproductive measure. I just wanted to point out that their only purpose wasn’t to intentionally annoy and harass gun owners, as was previously averred. There are people who honestly think that waiting periods will do some significant good, even though I am doubtful.

You are right when you say that responsible gun use will not hurt anyone. Unfortunately, the problem that divides this country is the huge number of irresponsible gun owners out there. The argument that the regulatory laws have their greatest impact on the responsible gun owners is certainly a valid one, but the argument that restricted manufacure and import of the most dangerous varieties of weapons harms law abiding citizens hasn’t yet been presented convincingly to me.

37

Damn straight that was my point. It’s ridiculous to suggest that some radical law will be brought about by a few scheming politicians or a small lobbying organization or some sort of legislative inertia despite it being opposed by the overwhelming majority and it being unconstitutional.

38

Danielinthewolvesden (ever gonna explain that handle to us, Dan?) sez:

Okay, I’m gonna use that comment as a jumping-off point, and steer this thread in a different direction (Can I mix my metaphors any worse? Not until we’ve taken this discussion to the next level playing field, I can’t.)

I just finished reading Garry Wills’ treatment of the Second Amendment in the book I mentioned earlier, A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government. Great book…very well-researched, and draws almost exclusively from primary sources. In it, he pretty thoroughly deconstructs the language of the Second Amendment, and dismisses any notion that the Framers intended it to apply to private ownership of guns.

Let’s reiterate the amendment, just so we’re all on the same page. So to speak.

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.

Wills’ argument is that both clauses are meant in an exclusively military sense. He claims that the use of the phrase “keep and bear arms” in the eighteenth century was overwhelmingly limited to references to the military, and points as further proof to the draft of the amendment which Madison submitted to the Constitutional Congress:

Note that the use of “bearing arms” in this sentence is in the context of an individual serving in the military.

He also points out that Article VI of the Articles of Confederation contains strikingly similar language:

The body lending provenance to the militias shifts from the states to “the people” (in line with the general consolidation of sovereignty in the Constitution), but otherwise the two seem to be conveying a relatively identical dispensation.

There’s more, but I wanted to get some thoughts on this.

Let me be clear, too, that I do believe that private gun ownership is a right conferred upon the American people…just not by the Second Amendment. Like Wills says, “Those who believe there is a natural right to own guns can argue their case on many grounds–natural right, for a start–and the arguments might be sound or strong. It’s just not a constitutional right (many of our rights are not constitutional ones).” I’d go him one better, and say that the argument could be made on Ninth Amendment grounds. Historical context and the writings of the Framers, however, suggest that the Second Amendment was intended solely to confer arms-bearing privileges upon a national militia.

(Daniel, are you satisfied? :D)

39

Gadarene: Somewhat, but you didn’t aswer my first questiom, what use is registration? (that is, not filling out forms & having a check, or a waiting period, WHEN you buy a gun, but later).

And yes, the 2nd admendment does apply to “the Militia”. But you see, the Militia in that period was any able-bodied citizen with a gun. You can find the text of the Militia act in any pro-gun 2nd admendment book or site.

And I am not saying I am against any gun laws. The Govt has the right to restrict which guns (if any) are imported, and to some extent, which are manuf, and sold by dealers. These restriction can relly cut down on the numbers, after time of militery type weapons

But, what I do not approve of is some guy, say a vet, purchasing a gun legally, theb owning it legally, then later some Politicians putting restrictions on that kind of gun, then taking it away.

40

The trouble is, Gadarene, that to advance an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which dismisses gun ownership as a right and allows the government to ban them moves us further from our goal and gives ammunition to gun-control opponents. We need to bring this issue to closure, not bust it wide open. I accept the interpretation that permits private gun ownership–as do most Americans–and I accept self-defense against criminals as a valid justification for having one. But we need to maintain the assurance that modest gun-control couldn’t possibly lead to total bans because the Constitution wouldn’t allow it.

Now then, Daniel, universal gun registration would be a very potent law-enforcement tool. If your pistol was registered in your name, you’d think twice before using it in a crime. If you wanted an unregistered gun, you’d have to find one on the black market. Not impossible, but more difficult and risky than walking into a store. Making crime more difficult, both physically and in terms of likelihood of getting caught, reduces it. Even more effecive would be a system of forensic “fingerprinting” of bullets and cartidge casings. (Gaderene, you might have added this to your list, along with monthly limits on gun purchases). This would be fairly expensive to implement and maintain, but that’s not why the NRA opposes it. Apparently, when someone gets shot, the NRA doesn’t want the cops to find out who did it, is that it? For the last time, gun registration is not going to “lead to” confiscation (and it wouldn’t come close to violating event the most, uh, “liberal” interpretation of the 2nd Amendment). The legislative process doesn’t work that way. This vision of house-to-house searches and siezure of guns is far beyond what the American people will tolerate. Besides, think how much that would cost.