Another Modest Proposal

[Odesio]

*Originally posted by Enderw23 *
**MGibson,

But I also believe that there are some groups of citizens that haven’t the means to protect themselves. They must rely on police. I also believe that if we cannot rely on authority figures to do their jobs when it’s warranted, the system collapses.

**

I just don’t think that’s a good idea. I don’t rely on the fire department to save me from a fire. The police are not dependable in the protection department.

**
And, as I state again, if I had to choose between:
a) instilling a belief in the youth of america that policemen aren’t to be trusted because they own guns/they hate us/policemen are downright evil and so problems must be taken care of on our own.

**

My point was that there is already whole generations of children being raised not to trust the police. Personally I wouldn’t trust the DEA or ATF to tell the truth and not violate rights. And I doubt most black or hispanic people trust the LAPD.

Marc

[Myrr21]

I’m guessing that I consider strict adherence to the 2nd Amendment to be one of those exemptions you talk about. I would also include free speech, the right to assemble, freedom of religion, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures etc… to also be some of those exemptions.

Hmm, strict adherence to the 2nd Amendment says you can own a gun. Says nothing about how powerful, how many rounds in a clip, rate of fire, how many you can own, how how long you have to wait between buying one and getting it. We can regualte the heck out of gun ownership and still be within the 2nd. If the govt tells you that you can’t own a gun, period, without an Amendment, then I don’t see owning a gun as breaking the law. If they tell you that you have to store the ammo separate and you don’t, then you’re a criminal. Simple, really.

Just remember that the Nazi’s were also law abiding when they killed 6 million Jews. Stalin and Mao were also following the law when they killed another 10-20 million. I seem to recall that slavery was also legal.

1. As I said, there’s things worth becoming a criminal for. That doesn’t, however, give you the right to still consider yourself “law-abiding”

2. This is completely irrelevant to my point. If you’ll care to notice, it was the pro-gun people who wanted to be seen as “law-abiding”.

…if those 100 million or so murdered by their own government in the last 100 years were armed then they might be alive.

I don’t see the relevance at all. I’m not debating whether we should have gun control; I’m pointing out that you can’t call yourself a “law-abiding gun owner” if you don’t follow the law–however stupid it may be–and that you can’t say it’s being “forced on you” unless you actually voted against it, and that even then it’s still the law, whether or not you choose to follow it. And that I can speak in run-ons.
(FWIW, though, the Branch Davidians were pretty well armed, as have been many many other people killed by their govts)

A law can very easily be immoral.

Look! It’s Captain McObvious! I never said anything to the contrary.

The problem is, this judgement gets applied retroactively by the winner.

I’ll make that judgement for myself, thank you very much. Hopefully, other people would do the same. I still consider some (currently) losing causes to be worth becoming a criminal for. I won’t say which ones, because I don’t want to debate that.

The term “law-abiding” may not have all the same connotations to you and me. I would say that is a person who can and should be trusted to make their own decision with full respect of others lives and property. I do not consider it a technical term to describe a person who is adept at jumping through any and all legal hoops the government chooses to arbitrarily erect.

I’m sorry, I was going by the obvious definition of “one who abides by the law”. Now, if you want to say “responsible gun owners”, I won’t argue you. But being resposible does not make one any less of a criminal.

[Freedom]

Says nothing about how powerful, how many rounds in a clip, rate of fire, how many you can own, how how long you have to wait between buying one and getting it. We can regualte the heck out of gun ownership and still be within the 2nd.

Call me Captain McObvious, but that sounds a hell of a lot like infingement to me.

Here try this…

You can go to church, but you can only own one Bible. You can go on Sundays, but only if you declare your intent to go by Wednesday. If you have children, the Bible must be locked up out of reach of the children. Anybody breaking any law, no matter how minor, is not allowed to go to church.

Once you jump through those hurdles…feel free to practice whatever religion you want.
I think you may be a little confused about what the phrase “inalienable rights” means.

[Dignan]

Uhhhh, the church’s main purpose is not to hurt people (or defend, what ever the hell you pro-gun people want to say). Like it or not, a gun’s main purpose is to hurt someone. Oh, and don’t come with people have killed in the name of religion, either. It was not a valid analogy.

[Myrr21]

You can go to church, but you can only own one Bible. You can go on Sundays, but only if you declare your intent to go by Wednesday. If you have children, the Bible must be locked up out of reach of the children. Anybody breaking any law, no matter how minor, is not allowed to go to church.

(just a question: misdemeanors don’t disqualify you from gun ownership, right? Or is it state by state?)

First off, none of those laws are protecting the rights/lives of the citizens, which gun control laws are. No kid is going to kill themself with a Bible, but if the Bible could launch a metal projectile through their head with the flip of a lever, you can bet there’d be laws just like you mentioned.

But, even so, try this:
Churchs must remain separate from the state and not receive public funding (with some sort of weird loopholes). Your children may not be taught about Church in public school. The Church must comply with zoning laws. I could go on.

Besides, if you think a law is unconstitutional, you can bet the NRA does too, and will challenge it (if not, you’re welcome to disobey and appeal it up). But so far, our gun control laws are still on the books, which seems a pretty good indication to me that the Supreme Court says that they’re legal. Which means that they are. And that they’re law. Oh well.

[Myrr21]

Just thought of an even better (and more famous) example, courtesy of Oliver Wendell (sp?).

Do you defend my First Amendment right to shout “fire” in a crowded theater? It seems to me that I can go to jail for this. In fact, it seems to me that the Supreme Court has ruled that in fact aspects of my First Amendment right can be regulated to protect the populace as a whole from danger. And then there’s laws about slander and such, though that’s civil rather than criminal law.

So what’s the difference here? You can own a gun, but you can only own it under certain conditions that our representatives felt were needed to protect the public from harm. You can say what you want, but only under certain conditions that our representatives felt were needed to protect the public from harm.

[Freedom]

But so far, our gun control laws are still on the books, which seems a pretty good indication to me that the Supreme Court says that they’re legal. Which means that they are. And that they’re law. Oh well.

I’m sure you are aware that our US Supreme Court has never really heard a true 2nd Amendment case. The most offensive laws were not enacted until 1994. It takes time to pass a law, put it in place, arrest someone, get the right case arrested, have him tried and convicted, then have him appeal his way up to the Supreme Court.
Don’t worry though, the Emerson case has a shot of answering that question for us.
And just for my general enlightenment…

We can regualte the heck out of gun ownership and still be within the 2nd.

Is it your personal opinion that the above quote is compatible with …Shall not be infringed…?

[Tejota]

infringe (?), v. t. [imp. p p. pr. pref. in- in + frangere to break. See Fraction, and cf. Infract .] 1. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law or contract.

If the first that did the edict infringe,
Had answered for his deed.
Shak.

The peace . . . was infringed by Appius Claudius.
Golding.

2. To hinder; to destroy; as, to infringe efficacy; to infringe delight or power. [Obs.] Hooker.

infringe , v. i. 1.To break, violate, or transgress some contract, rule, or law; to injure; to offend.

2. To encroach; to trespass; – followed by on or upon; as, to infringe upon the rights of another.

This isn’t terribly clear. It really depends on which definition of infringe is the legal one.

If you go with the first defintion, the way I read this, Congress is allowed to regulate, but not prohibit.

If you go with the second, the use of the word ‘encroach’ could be construed to deny regulation.

I think if the founders really wanted to prohibit all regulation of gun ownership, they probably would have used the word ‘abridge’ rather than ‘infringe’.

tj

[Myrr21]

Is it your personal opinion that the above quote is compatible with …Shall not be infringed…?

Obviously. Just like “we can regulate the First Amendment and say that I can’t shout fire in a crowded theater” does not infringe on my First Amendment rights.

Though I see you skirted that issue nicely.

[Myrr21]

Well, here we go:
Brady Bill

In fact, the Supreme Court did rule against portions of this, but not for anything to do with the 2nd Amendment. They mention the 10th, and say that it was an infringement on states’ rights. Presumably, then, the states could enact just such a bill, and still be within the 2nd. In fact, another atricle on the same decision says that most states planned to continue the practice.

That’s a start, anyway, (because I haven’t the time at the moment to do a more complete list)