The right in question is eminently alienable, as evidenced by the fact that most of the free societies in the world manage to do just fine without it. We just choose that we would rather live in a nation with a lot of school shootings and other murders than one without.
I think we treat definite terrorist actions differently. No-one thinks that 9-11 was indicative of a USA problem with air collisions or that the Madrid bombings show a Spanish rail problem or the Nice murders are a traffic accident problem. etc. etc.
The high level of ongoing, opportunistic gun deaths against soft targets in the USA does definitely seem to be something pretty unique amongst first world western nations.
You appear to have completely changed your argument. You tried to make the case that thousands of people getting shot every year, including innocent children, is somehow “just the price of freedom”. When you got called on it, by myself and others, you switched to another tired old right-wing saw, that there are so many guns out there that it’s too late to do anything about it. The only commonality between your old argument and this new one seems to be just a blanket opposition to gun control.
No, it’s not too late, though the problems are daunting. It wasn’t too late when the National Firearms Act was passed in 1934, but it was heavily watered down by pressure from gun lobbyists. It wasn’t too late in 1969, when all handguns were going to be licensed and illegal ones seized or bought back by the government, but the NRA scuttled that, too. And it’s not too late today, except for the power of the NRA and other lobbyists standing in the way.
Think about what you just wrote in those last two sentences. You appear to be suggesting that the US is an Old West style hotbed of gun-totin’ lawlessness, and if provoked all these gun-totin’ citizens will erupt in mass violence and turn the whole place into a war-torn shambles. I guess I have more faith in your country than you do. If stronger gun control and buy-back programs worked and were effective in Australia, there’s no reason it couldn’t work in the US.
But that’s only the obvious part of what gun control could do. The more subtle, long-term part is the way gun restrictions can gradually change the gun culture, exactly the way legal restrictions and health information programs changed the tobacco culture. At one time smoking was considered cool, a mark of adulthood, even sophistication, and was very widespread. Today if you’re still one of those who wants a cigarette, you have to go outside and skulk around like a criminal in some approved spot, generally far from the doors of the building, and most people’s attitude is along the lines of “keep that smoke away from me”.
When it comes to guns, America is still very much in this “cool” and “adulthood” imagery stage, not to mention even associations of patriotism and – as you tried to imply – false associations with freedom. Many Americans are familiar with the tight gun restrictions in other countries, but I think they’d be really surprised at the associated gun culture that goes with it. To the average person in these places, someone showing off his AR-15 and pistol collection would be considered, not cool, manly, or patriotic, but rather dangerously unhinged. The majority wouldn’t want to associate with such a person. And someone walking around with one of those things on a public street would be arrested by a SWAT team within minutes. The general result of tight restrictions is that guns become less and less commonplace simply as a societal evolution. Just like happened with tobacco, they lose their false glamor and sink into disrepute with the majority of the population.
I’m not a lawyer, or a constitutional scholar; but I do consider myself relatively intelligent (and willing to fight my own ignorance). So I’m sincerely asking people some questions. I truly want to understand.
To my understanding, we have amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The first 10 are called the Bill of Rights. So far, I think we can agree on that.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech.
The Fifteenth Amendment guarantees the right to vote. (Specifically, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, meaning those who had been slaves, but in this post, that’s nitpicking. The point is the amendment guarantees the right to vote. Period.)
Nowhere does it say either of these rights (or any other) are non-absolute; that is, you can’t say literally anything you want and cry “Freedom of speech!” For instance, you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater if there is no fire. You are guaranteed the right to criticize the government without penalty, but you are not allowed to threaten the life of the president.
You have the right to vote, but you do not have the right to vote more than once in any given election.
The point I’m making is that rights have limitations. I think that’s basically understood.
Except when it comes to the 2nd amendment. And my question is: Why? What is it about the 2nd that differs from the others? And if one amendment allows unlimited freedom, what limits the other rights?
The answer is the courts, since they interpret the laws. But I think it’s more complicated than that. Still, I’d like to hear other opinions. What is it about the 2nd Amendment that (apparently) allows people unlimited and unfettered access to a particular right, when other rights are limited in scope? It’s as is the pro-gun people say, “There’s only one amendment that counts: the Second Amendment!”
Does it have to do with the macho bullshit Charlton Heston said about cold dead hands?
The Second Amendment makes money for the gun industry. Where’s the money in supporting the Fourth Amendment?
It isn’t the case that the right to keep and bear arms has no limitations.
As you mention, one cannot sue the right to free speech to threaten the President. You also can’t use your Second Amendment rights to threaten the President either. So Second Amendment rights are not unrestricted any more than free speech rights are unrestricted.
Rights are inalienable in the sense that they cannot be taken away before they have been abused. You can’t vote twice in the same election, but you cannot forbid someone from voting unless and until it has been shown that he abused the right to vote. That’s why criminals are forbidden to possess guns, but hunters aren’t.
Regards,
Shodan
Almost no one argues that the 2nd Amendment’s rights are unlimited. There is almost no one, AIUI, who would object to the fact that American private citizens aren’t allowed to own nuclear weapons, VX or smallpox/plague weapons. (Of course, those weapons would be hugely expensive, but that’s another issue.)
In a popular sense it does seem that the right to own guns is unlimited. Before you or someone cries “Cite?!” I don’t mean from a strictly legal definition, but from the vox populi if you will. I say that because any time the subject of limiting gun ownership or rules of any kind, the pro-gun people (be they lobbyists, hobbyists, hunters, legislators, etc) scream “Don’t take my guns!” Even if no one is actually trying to ban guns, or take them away. Most recently, the attempt was to increase background checks, and register handguns. Yet even those discussions are non-starters, because they’re trampling on the rights of gun owners.
I’m judging from observation, not a legal POV. There seems to be more dander being raised by the gun issue than free speech or voting, or any other right guaranteed by the constitution.
I see the gun issue as emotionally charged, and people would be better off if it could be discussed rationally.
Of course, I’ll be able to travel back in time and write the Bible before that happens.
The thing is we constantly hear from the one side that thoughts and prayers are not enough. And they may bring forth a proposal, but even with a gun control friendly media, and a lot of people agreeing with doing something, they still seem to not be able to get anything done. All members of the house and senate are still beholden to their voters. If the sentiment is such that they are going to lose an election over the issue, then they will vote for the issue.
From what I have seen so far, while many felt he was a threat (though if he hears people talking about he will be the one to shoot up a school, does that not possibly go into his motivation, living down to expectations), he had not been arrested, he bought the gun legally. The only thing they could have done is lock him away because… As mentioned the Minority Report concept.
Not sure how many of you regularly go into school parking lots or are around schools. And not sure how things are in other parts of the country. I know our local schools have at least 2 arm police officers that patrol the school at all times. But let’s say he did not have a gun. Let’s say we have such good gun control laws that he never gets one. A car when the bell rings would do just as much or more damage. Those students are streaming to their cars and getting ready to leave, they walk out in front of the cars that are legit there to pick up students. The point is, someone that is so mentally unhinged that he is ok with killing others, will find a way.
Haven’t researched this specific incident, but from what little I saw in the paper, this teen lived at home w/ his parents, and had several weapons including an AR-15, and considerable ammo.
Were they his guns, or his parents? What laws apply to minimum age for owning various firepower? My personal opinion, is that there ought to be some manner of liability for the parents. Whether or not the knew such weapons were kept in their house, they SHOULD have known - especially if the kid had a record of violence/threats.
While that’s true from the SCOTUS view, it’s not necessarily true all around:
(To be fair, the author of that opinion piece mentions cars, which is not a right. I thought I’d point that out before someone tries to invalidate my source. I mention it because it points out two reasons that back up my argument.)
His mother died last year, and he moved in with family friends. How involved those friends could be in the interior life of an 18-19 year old boy, I have no idea.
Here’s where I get into the “lock scenario”. If someone wants to break into my car or house, they’re going to find a way. Does that mean I should just give up and leave the keys in my car with the door wide open? Or should I at least make an attempt to make it as difficult as reasonably possible to keep someone from stealing my car?
No solution is going to be perfect. But for one thing, make it difficult to get a gun.
Mental health issues are another. There’s much we can do about that. One thing is all of us: legislators, scientists, mental health professionals, and the general public, have to start destigmatizing mental illness. We have to come to the conclusion that it’s not a moral failing, or someone is somehow “broken” and to be avoided if they have a mental illness, regardless of degree.
Everyone has mental or emotional issues to one degree or another. We have to admit that, and go from there.
He was living with a family who took him in after his adoptive mother died a few months ago, his adoptive father having died several years earlier. I mention the adoption due to the ethnicity debate over his last name.
Yes, it is certainly an emotional issue, and yes, there is a subsection of gun-rights advocates who react to any suggestions of further gun control by characterizing it as an attempt to ban guns. But that is not an indication that gun rights are unlimited. And it is certainly not the case that overstatement is characteristic only of the gun side.
Because this -
is not really true, and the weasel word “effectively” doesn’t help. Unless one wants to assert that gun control advocates “effectively” want to ban guns.
To be fair, calls to revoke the Second Amendment do not necessarily mean that guns would be banned, any more than overturning Roe v. Wade would ban abortions. But so much of the rhetoric both on guns and abortion is based on the notion that it is a Constitutional right that it is hard to keep the distinction in mind.
ETA -
is another example. “We don’t want to ban your guns - just make it difficult for you to own one” is rather a fine line.
Regards,
Shodan
Survivor of the shootings Pits the President in Tweet:
“Florida Shooting: Parkland school student calls Donald Trump a ‘piece of s***’ over tweet of condolence”
“Prayers won’t fix this. But gun control will prevent it from happening again,” says teen."
Being adopted is a huge risk factor for committing homicide:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=175538
During an emotional time as this, people make statements about “gun control will fix this.”
I agree that a 19 yr old should probably not be able to purchase guns. I am pretty sure you have to be at least 21 to purchase a hand gun, but apparently not a rifle.
But then again, we let 18 yr olds sign up to join the military and teach them how to be really good a firing a weapon.
I am in agreement that anything that can be reasonably done, should be done. The question becomes what is reasonable.
Let’s say he had remarked (as has been reported) that he was going to shoot up a school (or something along those lines), even if local law enforcement interviews him, without him ever doing anything, what should they do? Should they lock him up for a statement? Maybe because of the type of statement, but hard to say. Let’s say they force him into counseling. Even if you force him to go, you cannot force him to get better. You cannot force him to take meds or change his thoughts.
The inalienable right, is personal autonomy. As long as he is not harming others, you cannot just lock him up. The problem is when his first act of harming others is escalated to killing former classmates and teachers with a gun.
The question is how do we help a kid that is depressed and hurting and so angry? I really wish I knew the answer and I think that is the question we need to start with.
If that question were sincerely considered and all options were on the table, I think we could move further. Just shouting gun control shuts down the discussion before it even starts.
Let’s say he had taken a car and run over a bunch of students leaving school. Then what? No one would seriously shout car control. They would have to look at the underlying issues. That is what should happen here.
Not exactly. It guarantees an equal right to vote* if you have voting.* There is no federal right to vote as such, BION.
But the point that rights are in conflict constantly, and have to be restricted because they cannot overlap, is exactly right and often misrepresented by ideologues.
One sometimes hears that’s because it’s the only constitutional right that “shall not be infringed”. Not that that’s a *good *argument, but it exists.
They do have a lot of trouble explaining why, though. Yes, there’s the Red Dawn argument, but that only brings up the issue of mental health.
Wouldn’t he get locked up for threatening to shoot a specific person? If so, why not lock him up for threatening to shoot lots of people? And make it come up in a background check so he can’t get guns when he gets out?