I know why you think what you do. It’s not a secret, but in the context of being paranoid it’s the same thing. You think that people should not be trusted with firearms, therefore the government should know exactly where they all are at all times. I come from the opposite side and think that people should be trusted until they betray that trust. As such, it’s not anybody’s business, least of all politicians who reserve the right to decide for me how I should be living my life.
I’ve oftened wondered why gay rights groups have not been championing concealed carry, especially back in the hey day of gay bashing. A couple of dead would be gay bashers and a clear message would have been sent.
Some do. Look up the Pink Pistols. Their motto: Armed gays don’t get bashed".
The OP’s argument amounts to saying that the Democrats should humor the subset of the people with a simplistic and dangerous idea of the constitution.
Many posters in this thread have pointed out that the NRA lies about the Democrat Party’s stance on guns, simplistically representing the party as “gun-grabbers.”
Are most Democrats in favor of more regulation of guns than former rural-state governor Howard Dean? Yes.
Did Dean get thrown out of the party? No, of course not. He got to chair the DNC. And he had a 100% rating as pro-gun by the NRA.
(The news media went after his presidential campaign and torpedoed it. I don’t know why. Ask them.)
Gun control doesn’t have to mean full confiscation. It can mean banning particular classes of weapons. (As we do. Try and buy a functional battle rifle. Go on, try.) It can mean keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally incompetent or those with a history of violent crime. It can mean a database of weapons so it’s easier to track one used in a crime (and deter crime with the threat of this). These are not perfect measures; nothing is. But they work toward the public health. Yes, the 1990’s assault weapon ban was goofy; it was also, apparently, rather strongly endorsed by police departments.
(pro-ban site):
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/assault-weapons/what-law-enforcement-says-about-assault-weapons
When you say you need guns because others have them, that’s an argument* for* gun control–for limited gun control, maybe, but for something–for keeping a lid on the three-way arms race between criminals, law enforcement, and police.
So, should Democrats back off from saying we should outlaw guns and ammunition? Yes, probably, as that is simplistic.
Should Republicans accept that some controls on the gun trade might stop a significant proportion of mass killings (how many this summer now?) and stupid-guy-gets-in-a-fight-and-kills-someone cases? Yes, I think they should.
This simply isn’t true. The “popular understanding” is popular because it is crystal clear from the writings of the founders that their intention was to enable the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Your position is held by around 20% of the people – those who have been mislead.
Some examples of the thinking of the founders can be found in the state constitutions of the first states.
MASSACHUSETTS “The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.”
Mass. Decl. Of Rights, pt. I, art. XVII
VIRGINIA “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
Va. Const. art I, Sect. 13
DELAWARE “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”
Del. Const. Art. I, Sect. 20
The idea that a standing army is dangerous to liberty and that the people should always be able to defend themselves from government is what the 2nd Amendment is about. Attempts to claim otherwise by trying to twist the meaning of archaic language will only work on people who won’t do their own research.
Look at Jefferson’s remark about the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed by the blood of tyrants and patriots.
The “civil authority” is the state government. “Exact subordination” is presumably direct control. Looks like the militia, if that’s “military power,” was under government control.
“The body of the people,” is the people corporately, that is, collectively, not individually. And again we have strict subordination of military power to civil power; subordination of the power of arms to the rule of law.
You found one! Good for you! “A person.” Note how unusual this is? The others don’t say, “persons,” they say, “the people.” But fine, yes, Delaware appears to be an outlier.
But, I surmise from the style that this was not written in the Founding period.
:googles:
In fact, the present Delaware constitution was drafted in 1897–a century later–and went through revisions and amendments up to 1995. You’re quoting the last of twenty clauses in that constitution’s bill of rights. So that could be a relatively late addition; and from the language, I suspect it was written in the 1980’s or later–and I’m right! 1987.
You have failed to prove an ancient right from that one; you quoted something from the Reagan period. Want to go up against me and my Google-fu on history some more?
Google-Fu might indicate your knowledge is obtained “just in time.” 
So since we already have all that in place, sounds like you want something for nothing.
At least they actually do it instead of just considering an offer to do it, as Johnny suggests.
The logic of your statement bears such incomplete rationale I am embarassed trying to explain it to you.
Why is anything illegal? Murder, rape and aggravated assault (to name a few) are inherently illegal by any means. That’s why they are obviously illegal (duh). There is no legitimate reason for those things to ever occur. Owning guns of various types to include assault weapons is not inherently dangerous or by definition make the owner pre-disposed to commiting crimes with them. They have many uses in sport, collecting and hunting. Yes, as has been mentioned, even handguns are used for hunting, believe it or not.
No kidding. The University he was kicked out of had plenty of prior warning what was about to happen and will probably end up looking pretty bad before it’s all said and done.
Are you saying shooting people is not fine, under certain circumstances? I think the timing of the Empire State shooting was excellent as well. Perfect example of when a person needs to be dispatched quickly with a handgun.
Fixed that for you.
Because the word “assault” sounds scary?
Seriously, this is a great page, showing the evolution of the right to bear arms in different states:
The Delaware constitution of 1776 did mention guns; perhaps not in a way libertarians would like:
Seems a bit extreme. How sparsely populated was the state then?
Delaware passed the US Constitution of 1787 without any of the Bill of Rights. Looks like they just didn’t care.
Looking at Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia I find a link to United States vs. Timothey Joe Emerson
Here’s a neat quote from Samuel Adams, note how qualified these rights should be in his characterization:
I’m actually more impressed by “the **just **liberty of the press.” You could write books about “just” in that sentence, had it passed into law.
There’s more here:
There is a lot of disagreement on the “proper” reading of the Constitution. My personal opinion is that it’s interesting but insufficient to try to work out what the Founders “really meant;” we need laws that work for us today. If that means we need handguns because there are bears in the berry bushes, fine. If that means we need to control and well regulate the gun trade because there are loopy nitwits like George Zimmerman, Scott Roeder, and the various racist gangs of America who cannot be trusted with guns—that’s fine too.
We do not need to regard the writings of the Founders as beyond us to refute, as if we were incompetent children or they perfectly wise. We have to write laws that work for us today. I would appreciate it if those who advocate for private gun ownership (because there are indeed bears in the berry bushes, or whatever) had the decency to stick to reasonable present-day arguments. Because we can go back and forth on arguments from ancient authority all day—and it’s still an appeal to the supposed wisdom of an archaic patrician class. But I’m not holding my breath.
So you can quote your ancient revered Founders, and I’ll quote mine, and honestly, I might still win that one.
Ah, you’re making it too easy for me. These are from your own cite:
Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819, art. I, § 23)
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.
Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Art. I, § 32 (enacted 1851, art. I, § 32).
1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.
Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: …
1792: “That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” Art. XII, § 23.
Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. Art. I, § 16 (enacted 1987, after a collective-rights interpretation of the original provision).
1819: “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned.” Art. I, § 16.
Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Art. III, § 12 (enacted 1890, art. 3, § 12).
1817: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State.” Art. I, § 23.
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
I really wish you would use your abilities to seek truth rather to support your biased point of view. Twisting the meaning of archaic language and dismissing modern language out of hand just because it is modern … fah!
[MODERATING]
NEVER change the content of someone else’s post within quote tags, ever, for any reason, even if you point out that you changed it. That is an absolute hard and fast board rule. No exceptions are allowed, except for editorially standard omissions made for the sake of brevity that do not change the substative meaning of the text.
This is a suspendable/bannable offense, but as you are new here no official warning this time. But don’t do it again.
You may wish to consult the board FAQs in “About This Message Board.”
Thanks,
RickJay
Moderator
And my state has had no licensing, no registration, AND no restriction on either open or concealed carry for pretty much ever. Oh, and we have the lowest murder rate in the country.
Yes, you got me.
State constitutions, dating to the 1810’s, do in fact say you have a right to bear arms in defense of yourself and the state. You win that one, I was cherry-picking, that was sloppy and wrong of me. Good for you.
But what I find interesting is what the different versions do and don’t say. Let’s see, Texas’s clause is mostly just rephrased:
But across the country, over time the qualifications change, and then start to disappear:
State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions, by Date (emphases mine)
See the subtle evolution over time, and back and forth political redefinition? So much for the nice simple rule. Didn’t see any that actually claimed it comes from God, but maybe in a couple of years we’ll see those get passed.
Boy, there are a lot of strange stereotypical views of Democrats and Republicans out there. I can’t even begin to address some of the above statements that purport to describe what people in each of these parties believe and do.
Compromise can seem like a reasonable path when two people disagree, but who is willing to compromise on freedom of speech, press, and religion? So, there may be situations where compromise is not reasonable.
One reason that we don’t have new, onerous gun laws under Eric Holder and the Obama administration is that 65 Democrats wrote and signed a letter to AG Holder stating they would not support another “assault weapons” ban. There are all kinds of Democrats (and Republicans) and those of us who enjoy shooting sports can tip our hats to those 65 Congressmen, especially Mike Ross (4th District, Arkansas) who headed the effort early in the administration.
It may be that we’re talking past each other. There is a tradition of moderate gun regulation in this country.
It does seem like it’s more politically correct now to pretend that there’s an absolute right to bear arms that comes from God Himself than to call for total confiscation. To be honest, I’d rather have (only mostly total) confiscation than do violence to the rationalist tradition by pretending that God gave us an inalienable personal right to firearms (as Sen. Tom Coburn seems to claim).
And to be a moderate is to sin against both these extremisms.
You may say I’m knocking down straw men, but I don’t think I am. There is a lot of very scary rhetoric to the effect that we can’t even try to deter the mass killings because God Wrote the Constitution. In such an age, even if I try to be a moderate and compromise, I’m going to be a “gun-grabber” by comparison, and I’m not sorry, and I will not concede to crazy gun-rights fanatics.
I don’t think I really disagree that much with, say, Airman Doors, on what the law should be. I disagree with the justifications which are used to refuse to look at real problems of our present age in the moderate rationalist tradition, and try to solve them.
You (and others) might change your views if you knew more about guns.
The Federal (and CA) “Assault Weapons Ban” prevented the sale of semi-automatic rifles with certain characteristics. Automatic weapons require a special Federal firearms license in states that don’t ban them altogether. Simply, a semi-automatic weapon places a new round in the chamber so that you can fire it by pulling the trigger again without manual operation of a bolt. There are many, many such rifles in existence, some sold at Big 5. An automatic weapon will continue to reload and fire as long as you hold the trigger down.
The standard rifle for the marines and army is based on the AR-15 design of the 1960s (AR stands for Armalite Rife, not automatic rifle). It’s an automatic weapon with a continuous fire mode, a burst mode (3 shots), and a semi-auto mode – it’s a light battle rifle not a cannon. I have no idea why it’s called an “assault” rifle, the 5.56mm (.22 cal) round is pretty wimpy, but it makes great political theater.
Versions of the AR-15 sold to civilians are only semi-automatic (autoloading) and do not have an automatic or a burst mode (unless you have a special Federal firearms license to own one). If you simply change the shape of the buttstock so there is no pistol grip, an AR-15 is no longer a banned weapon. The rules don’t make sense, except perhaps politically.
The AR-15 is currently popular for varmint hunting; believe me, those critters are fast and you don’t get much opportunity to get off extra shots. It’s also a small and lightweight rifle and that’s important if you’re carrying it a long distance while hunting.
My view of the Second Amendment probably differs from yours. I believe that it was written into the Bill of Rights to ensure that “We the People” could physically defend ourselves against a government gone totally awry. In the battle of Bunker Hill, the British were attempting to take the Boston armory to disarm the Americans, which might have altered the course of history forever. If ever we must physically defend ourselves against our government, it will be difficult if the government is armed with battlefield weapons and we have 22s. The Second Amendment is about guaranteed protection from an onerous government, not hunting rabbits as you suggested. (To address a possible counterargument about militias, I don’t believe you have to belong to an organized militia to own a gun. I find the idea of militias a little bit creepy at this point in time, but they might be needed in the future.)
Yes, people really hunt with handguns too, as well as use them for self protection. It’s probably a necessity in Alaska to defend yourself against bears in some areas.
A more profitable discussion might be how to keep firearms from people we judge shouldn’t have them.
Many highly publicized gun incidents involve mental illness or instability (e.g., the 101 Calfornia Street shooting that led Dianne Feinstein to sponsor the Federal assault weapons ban, and student shootings in VA and CO). BATF regulation prevents people with certain mental illnesses from purchasing firearms, yet there is no way to check unless this information is somehow in the ATF licensing system. A purchaser can simply lie about his/her mental condition. So, there is a trade off between the right to own a gun and the right to keep private sensitive information about your medical condition. What would you propose?
The way it was explained to me is that the AR-15 is light enough to be a good assault rifle, but it is used as a battle rifle due to US combat doctrine. (The AK-47 is almost the other way around: a battle rifle that serves as a passable assault rifle.) In most languages this distinction is meaningless, by the way.
The assault weapons ban, being on guns that look like assault rifles, had a somewhat credible police purpose, but was probably largely political theater.
Good point that all that Bunker Hill stuff with Paul Revere yelling “The British are coming!” should really be remembered as “The British are coming to take our guns.” That point seems to be glossed over in the history books used in schools. The Americans fought off their own government (we were British subjects, you know) and the thought of government out of control and attempting to disarm the people was very fresh on their minds when they wrote the Constitution.
They weren’t coming to take guns from private individuals’ homes. They were coming to secure caches of military stores. In fact,** they were under direct orders not to take private property from homes.**
I still think the point is valid that “the shot heard 'round the world” was fired when the government attempted to seize weapons that belonged to ‘the people’.