# Did Gore "shoot" himself in the ballot box? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 14, 2001, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125 "2001-08-14T01:06:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/101 "2001-08-24T12:52:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBeer \* > \*\*Does anyone know the actual specifics of the DC law? Does it ban handgun posession outright? Or does it only ban the sale and transfer of new and/or used handguns? It’d probably be a good idea to know exactly what we’re discussing. \*\* The full District of Columbia code is available online from NEXIS publishing [here](http://www.michie.com@198.187.128.12/dc/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&2.0). Firearms are handles under Title 6, Health & Safety, Section 23. The way I read it, it definitely prohibits most individuals from possessing firearms. Here are some relevant sections, with bolding added. > [@](#): > > § 6-2311. Registration requirements. > > (a) **Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no person or organization in the District of Columbia (“District”) shall receive, possess, control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, or deliver any destructive device, and no person or organization in the District shall possess or control any firearm, unless the person or organization holds a valid registration certificate for the firearm.** A registration certificate may be issued: > > (1) \*\*To an organization if: > > (A) The organization employs at least 1 commissioned special police officer or employee licensed to carry a firearm whom the organization arms during the employee’s duty hours;\*\* and > > (B) The registration is issued in the name of the organization and in the name of the president or chief executive officer of the organization; > > (2) In the discretion of the Chief of Police, **to a police officer who has retired from the Metropolitan Police Department;** or > > (3) In the discretion of the Chief of Police, to the Fire Marshal and any member of the Fire and Arson Investigation Unit of the Fire Prevention Bureau of the Fire Department of the District of Columbia, who is designated in writing by the Fire Chief, for the purpose of enforcing the arson and fire safety laws of the District of Columbia. > > (b) Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to: > > (1) Any law enforcement officer or agent of the District or the United States, or any law enforcement officer or agent of the government of any state or subdivision thereof, or any member of the armed forces of the United States, the National Guard or organized reserves, when such officer, agent, or member is authorized to possess such a firearm or device while on duty in the performance of official authorized functions; > > (2)\*\* Any person holding a dealer’s license: Provided, that the firearm or destructive device is: \*\* > > (A) Acquired by such person in the normal conduct of business; > > (B) Kept at the place described in the dealer’s license; and > > \*\* © Not kept for such person’s private use or protection, or for the protection of his business; \*\* > > (3) With respect to firearms, any nonresident of the District participating in any lawful recreational firearm-related activity in the District, or on his way to or from such activity in another jurisdiction: Provided, that such person, whenever in possession of a firearm, shall upon demand of any member of the Metropolitan Police Department, or other bona fide law enforcement officer, exhibit proof that he is on his way to or from such activity, and that his possession or control of such firearm is lawful in the jurisdiction in which he resides: Provided further, that such weapon shall be unloaded, securely wrapped, and carried in open view. I especially like 2B, there, which prohibits dealers from having them if they’re actually used for protection. The section after this one appears to grandfather in validly registered handguns prior to 1976. According to 6-2341, it’s also illegal to manufacture firearms, ammunition, or firearms parts in the District. 6-2351 prohibits sales and transfers completely, except for sales to dealers. 6-2372 requires all firearms to be kept unloaded and disassembled or with a trigger lock, with certain exceptions. 6-2375 provides immunity from prosecution for anyone who voluntarily surrenders a firearm or ammo to the police. If it has no evidentiary value, it is to be destroyed. 6-2376.1 provides for confiscation of a person’s automobile if it is used to transfer a firearm. Thank heavens for all these laws. The District is a much safer place for it, I’ll tell you what. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/102 "2001-08-24T13:37:34Z")
I especially like this one, Phil, the “F.O.P. Kickback Clause” as it has been called before (there is similar text in the “Assault Weapons Ban” too, IIRC) > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > \*\* > (2) In the discretion of the Chief of Police, **to a police officer who has retired from the Metropolitan Police Department;** or… \*\* :rolleyes: This is **bullshit** , IMO. A retired police officer is in no way more of a citizen than anyone else. IMO, the sole purpose of this portion of the law was not so special decorative weapons could be presented as “awards” upon retirement - it was to get police buy-in on the passage of the law. If the most average citizens do not “need” a weapon, then neither does any other average citizen - which is exactly what a person no longer employed by the police force, and no longer acting as an on-duty police officer _is_. An ordinary citizen. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/103 "2001-08-24T15:29:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > **Because if someone’s coming at me from a few yards away with a [non gun]…I can try to outrun my assailant…** I’d tend to disagree. If the attacker has even a moderate level of skill in hand-fighting and with the weapon he’s carrying, there’s still not much you can do but run and hope you’re faster than he is. > [@](#): > > \*\*If they’ve got a gun, anything I do depends on their being unable to use the gun proficiently; all I can do is try to present an erratically moving target until I can get something solid in between me and my assailant. And if his reflexes are good enough … I’m dead. > > I have to ascribe my drastically different survival chances in these two scenarios to the gun. So, yes, it’s at least in significant part a gun killing.\*\* No, it’s not a gun killing, it’s a killing. There’s no problem with “gun crime” but with crime. The weapon used is inconsequential. The problem is a murderous will. Yes, a gun is a more efficient weapon, but the will to murder comes from the man holding the gun. A gun won’t leap up off the ground and kill you. It is only a tool. And a man determined to kill you will do it (or at least attempt it) regardless of the tools available. Do you believe Michaelangelo could have done the work he did if instead of a fine chisel, he had to use a popsicle stick? Or Da Vinci if he had to use a piece of deerskin and berry juice instead of a brush and oils? A carpenter with flint and stone tools instead of hammer & nails? So I can make the very same argument in all those cases. Having the proper tools made the job possible and greatly enhanced the quality. So instead of wondering at the talents of great artists, perhaps we should frame the brushes and such that they used, because they obviously made the job possible. > [@](#): > > **Anybody know the name of the guy who opened the bomb bay at Hiroshima, or Nagasaki? Of course not: it was the bomb that killed.** Hiroshima: Col. Tom Ferebee Nagasaki: Col. Kermit Behan But both strikes were ordered by President Truman, acting on behalf of the United States, in a state of war. It’s easy to second-guess actions taken under pressure from the perspective of sixty years of analysis and hindsight, isn’t it? Both bombadiers (both full crews, actually) expressed feelings of deep guilt and remorse following the bombings. Robert Lewis, the copilot of the Enola Gay said as they left the scene “My God, what have we done?” Note that he did not say “what has that bomb thingie done?” Even bombs don’t kill unless directed by human will. Period. > [@](#): > > **Consider the gun to be one nontrivial step on the spectrum from a knife to atomic weaponry.** This looks like a candidate for your slippery slope thread. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/104 "2001-08-24T16:06:56Z")
Thanks, PLD. That indeed appears to be a far-reaching set of statutes. I’m going to write the NRA asking for their interpretation and their reasons for not attempting to have this struck down. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2001, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/105 "2001-08-25T02:55:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBeer \* > Something else that occurs to me in regard to the DC handgun ban, is that it is a _local_ law, the Constitution deals only with _federal_ lawmaking. States and other governing bodies may be free to pass whatever legislation they wish that does not violate their own charters. Actually, it’s a firmly established doctrine that no state law can trump a Constitutional right belonging to individuals. No state can abrogate my freedom of speech or of religion, for instance, or decide that my right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is less than what the Supremes say it is at the Federal level. **Una** - it’s hard for me to believe that anyone sees, in _this_ court, a “liberal judicial activist slant”, given that Sandra O’Connor, a woman somewhat to the right of the late Richard Nixon, is its ideological fulcrum. But one should never underestimate the power of paranoia, I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2001, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/106 "2001-08-25T03:36:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joe\_Cool \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > > Because if someone’s coming at me from a few yards away with a [non gun]…I can try to outrun my assailant… > > I’d tend to disagree. If the attacker has even a moderate level of skill in hand-fighting and with the weapon he’s carrying, there’s still not much you can do but run and hope you’re faster than he is. And if he doesn’t have much skill? I mean, how much skill with guns does the average urban gangbanger have? The reality is, it requires far less skill to cause or effectively threaten far more injury with a gun. And if you’re looking at the wrong end of a gun, and are relying on its user to be sufficiently unskilled that he can’t use it on you, you’ve got precious little margin of error if you’re wrong. > [@](#): > > No, it’s not a gun killing, it’s a killing. There’s no problem with “gun crime” but with crime. The weapon used is inconsequential. The problem is a murderous will. Without a gun, drive-by ‘murderous will killings’ are exceedingly rare. > [@](#): > > It is only a tool. _Civilization, ho-o!_ Seriously, ‘only’ a tool. So’s my computer, but I’m arguing with some guy possibly a thousand miles away over it, without thinking much about it. To borrow _Hitchhiker_ phraseology, this is a definition of ‘only’ that I can’t say I’m very familiar with. > [@](#): > > And a man determined to kill you will do it (or at least attempt it) regardless of the tools available. Against someone who’s obsessed by the idea of killing me, I must admit I have little defense, other than to move to another state, buy a fictitious identity, and start an entirely new life. Regardless of weaponry. I agree. So what? Against someone who briefly loses his temper with me - a far more likely scenario; I can be pretty irritating at times - I’d much prefer he has a knife than a gun, for the reasons I’ve already stated. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Anybody know the name of the guy who opened the bomb bay at Hiroshima, or Nagasaki? Of course not: it was the bomb that killed. > > Hiroshima: Col. Tom Ferebee > Nagasaki: Col. Kermit Behan Good lookup. Your point? > [@](#): > > But both strikes were ordered by President Truman, acting on behalf of the United States, in a state of war. It’s easy to second-guess actions taken under pressure from the perspective of sixty years of analysis and hindsight, isn’t it? It’s really best if you respond to the words I’ve typed, rather than to what the little voices are saying. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2001, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/107 "2001-08-25T05:30:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > **And if he doesn’t have much skill?** Well, then he can still cut you to ribbons, and likely kill you anyway. Just less efficiently and more painfully. > [@](#): > > **Good lookup. Your point?** Thanks! None, really. What exactly was your point in asking for their names? > [@](#): > > \*\*It’s really best if you respond to the words I’ve typed, rather than to what the little voices are saying. \*\* It’s really best if you (read and) respond to the words **I’ve** typed, rather than to what **your** little voices are saying: > [@](#): > > [both crews] expressed feelings of deep guilt and remorse following the bombings. Robert Lewis, the copilot of the Enola Gay said as they left the scene “My God, what have we done?” Note that he did not say “what has that bomb thingie done?” > > Even bombs don’t kill unless directed by human will. The crew of at least one plane documented that they seemed to have felt strongly that _they_ had killed all those people, not the bomb itself (they were incorrect, because in that instance, as part of a military unit they were tools nearly as much as the bomb was, and the true responsibility for the [correct] decision lies with President Truman and his advisors). If I smashed your head with a rock, it’s not the rock that killed you, it’s me. If a bomb was dropped on your house and you were killed, it’s not the bomb that killed you, it’s a) the crew of the plane, and b) whoever issued the order to drop. Sure, the weapon is what causes the actual death, but it has no will, and is no more responsible for the killing than the paintbrush is for the masterpiece. It’s simply the right tool for the job. Is there greater responsibility with a right like the right to be armed? Absolutely. There should be very stiff penalties, very strictly enforced for abusing that right. But regardless, it is a right, illegally violated in most states. And the Democrats (in a feeble attempt to end my hijack…heh) are making a play to win back voters who feel that way, and actually think about the issue, rather than making knee-jerk emotional judgements based on the tragedy du jour. I think it’s a pretty transparent attempt, but it’s definitely better than the past 8 years of steady attack. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2001, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/108 "2001-08-25T10:04:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > \*\ ***Una** - it’s hard for me to believe that anyone sees, in _this_ court, a “liberal judicial activist slant”, given that Sandra O’Connor, a woman somewhat to the right of the late Richard Nixon, is its ideological fulcrum. But one should never underestimate the power of paranoia, I suppose. \*\* I don’t think that the inflammatory word “paranoia” is a proper word to use here, when referring to being mistaken in judgement and interpretation on how the SC is acting on cases before it. A better way to say it is that there is a serious misunderstanding of how the SC has been leaning of late. However, the current lean of the SC has not always been this way. If one thinks of the composition of the SC since the DC laws went into place, one sees that its slant and rulings have come about somewhat. Trying to predict the political composition of the SC when you start down the trail towards a Consitutional ruling is likely a dangerous guessing game. Note I said I disagreed with the fears for two reasons - First, I believe the evidence of the intent and meaning (and it seems pretty clear from the quotes and words that many in all the other gun current control threads in GD are using, **both** pro or con, that many of the key points in my earlier posts on that subject are not being read) is clear and unambiguous, and Second, if the SC _were_ going to interpret the SA as they see fit, regardless of historical basis and grounding, then we may as well get it over with and not keep living in a lie of freedom. We may as well face the truth, and not keep denying it. Just like anti-gun people would have to face the truth should there be a ruling against them. _Note: In fair disclosure, some significant text in the following re-worded from the talk.politic.guns pro-gun FAQ_ On the subject of States and their take on the right to keep and bear arms, it is interesting to note that the Constitutions of 44 States include a provision protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms, to various degrees. This fact further undermines the contention that the Second Amendment protects only the state’s organized militia, especially considering that some of the State constitutions, like Virginia’s, pre-date the federal constitution. (Such arms-right provisions at the state level cannot reasonably be interpreted as being intended to prevent the state from disarming an organized state militia over which it presumably has complete command and control!) The opinion of many is that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental, because the right to self defense is fundamental, not only against the actions of common criminals, but against those uncommon criminals acting under the auspices of government as well Note also that the 6 states that do not have a constitutional provision on the right to keep and bear arms are: California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. Wisconsin passed their RKBA Amendment in 1998, although it has not been “tested” yet. Isn’t one of the fundamental legal problems in your question, **RT** , that Washington DC is not a State, and thus has a peculiar status under the law? Washington DC does not have a personal “Constitution” of its own, and so must rely on the USC solely. And since it is not a State…I don’t know, it seems like there may be some peculiar legal issues at play here that I, being in no way a lawyer, do not understand. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2001, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/109 "2001-08-25T11:42:00Z")
**RT** , you’ve lived and worked in the DC metro area for a significant portion of your life. Have you ever once had a handgun pointed at you, here or anywhere else? Have you ever been threatened with a knife, or blunt instrument, to the point where you feel self-defense is necessary? I understand that many gun-control advocates take their position out of an honest desire to provide some level of safety for society as a whole. But it appears that an equal number, who are in the habit of tossing words like “paranoia” at gun owners, live their lives in fear of an event that, given certain lifestyles, socioeconomic conditions, and geographic locations, is so unlikely to happen to them as to be statistically insignificant. I’m an advocate of fairly liberal private gun ownership laws, but I don’t own one. Never have. I’ve been around guns all my life; when you have grandparents from West Virginia and a father in the military, it’s hard not to see a few guns. I’ve lived in some **very** bad neighborhoods in Cleveland, and my badns often played in bad neighborhoods as well. Despite all this, I’ve never witnessed a shooting, never witnessed a gun accident, never been threatened with a gun, and never seen anyone else threatened with one. I think we should all be careful when using words like “paranoia.” It seems to be a _petard_ as likely to hoist the user as the target. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2001, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/110 "2001-08-25T12:27:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > \*\* > **Una** - it’s hard for me to believe that anyone sees, in _this_ court, a “liberal judicial activist slant”, given that Sandra O’Connor, a woman somewhat to the right of the late Richard Nixon, > \*\* First, assuming that you have some coherent definition of “right” in mind, cite? Second, assuming you are right, so what? Nixon was no conservative. The man imposed wage and price controls, fer chissake! > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > \*\* > is its ideological fulcrum. But one should never underestimate the power of paranoia, I suppose. \*\* **Anthracite** already called you on “paranoia”. I suppose if you want to discuss whether or not this slant actually exists, we should start another thread. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2001, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/111 "2001-08-25T18:03:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBeer \* > I submit, in light of declining homicide rates, the demonstrable utility of firearms as instruments self-defense, that .02/10,000 is a reasonable number. OK, guess I missed that one, even if it means using a number of 600 instead of 30,000. A direct answer from one of you, at least. > [@](#): > > I’m afraid I do not see any “rights vs. rights dilemma.” The 600 or 30,000 people per year might suggest they had a right which was infringed upon. If one of your loved ones was one, you might think so too. But they’re just numbers, I suppose, not people with lives and rights who are members of the same society you are. Should their survivors be proud that they were martyred for the cause of preventing our democratic government from using its jack-booted fascistic natural tendencies? > [@](#): > > Unless it the one you advocate, namely honest and peaceful (was that too Libertarian?) citizens should not be allowed to defend themselves using the same tools as their agressors. _That’s_ the dilemma. I have advocated no such thing (and you were speaking to me of “not debating in good faith”?). I merely suggest that some level of restriction and forced responsibility beyond that which already exists is reasonable, and appropriate to protect other rights which exist in society. You’re using the same old gun-rights fundamentalist straw man, IOW. > [@](#): > > As for your advice we read the first three words of the Constitution, mine says “We the **people** , …” Seems to imply individuals rather than a collective. > What’s your point? Even if individuals, people act collectively. What’s YOUR point? > [@](#): > > And by what process do come to the conclusion that the words, which express the reasoning process, of the originiators of the Constitution are no longer valid? That’s crazy talk. Only to a strict constructionist, willingly bound by the views and contexts of the late 1700’s. It ignores the sense they had, well-documented in both the Constitution itself and the surrounding dicta you take as equally binding, that the world would continue to evolve and that the Constitution and laws would have to evolve with it. They would be very frightened, I believe, of a citizenry that did not continuously think for themselves re-evaluate what is important, but referred to the original writers as the fount of all wisdom, both legal and moral. Even for strict constructionists, what the Constitution writers meant it to say is what it says. All else is commentary. Using that commentary as being on the same level as the document itself is simple idolatry, not reason. How they reached their conclusions is interesting historically, but to be bound by it as holy writ is, as you put it, “crazy talk.” But thanks for addressing the fundamental moral issue here in a direct way. There are a number of other posters here who (disappointingly) would seemingly rather not only not address uncomfortable moral questions at all, but won’t even state their own thoughts or how they arrived at them. A flood of legal commentary quotes instead is mildly interesting, even when they’re non-majority opinions by Clarence Thomas of all people (thanks for the laugh, **Anthracite** ), but it still shows the discomfort that must be inherent in adhering to hard-line views as a quasi-religion - the human consequences are simply inescapable. [sarcasm]Now, it’s only a matter of time before the handgunless and nearly weaponless citizens of Britain are swarmed under by the unfettered fascists of the British government, using their vastly-better-armed military forces to enslave the entire populace. Those poor people are defenceless to protect their precious civil liberties, or even to protect their own selves from armed criminals. [/sarcasm} Ridiculous assessment, huh? Different country and society? In what significant respect? Well, draw your own conclusions. The facts are there. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2001, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/112 "2001-08-25T18:32:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\*A flood of legal commentary quotes instead is mildly interesting, even when they’re non-majority opinions by Clarence Thomas of all people (thanks for the laugh, **Anthracite** ) \*\* All that text posted over the last week, and this is the only thing you can pick out? And the context I used it in was merely to State how the direction of some (one) on the SC feel about the potential future of a 2nd Amendment case. In the context of my response, this was a perfectly valid quote. I am glad, however, that you can laugh at whatever SC decisions don’t fit your ideologies, while refusing to back up your own arguments in any real manner. It was not a “non-majority” opinion, as Thomas was in the majority on this case. The Brady Act was found unconstitutional in this case, and Thomas concurred with that. [http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html](http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html) > [@](#): > > Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. O’Connor, J., and Thomas, J., filed concurring opinions. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined. If you want to see the other opinions on the case, feel free to look them up. FTR, Breyer and Stevens do not comment on the 2nd Amm. in their dissenting response. Scalia seems to focus mainly on the Federal compelling of State and local officers, and O’Connor believes that “The provisions invalidated here, however, which directly compel state officials to administer a federal regulatory program, utterly fail to adhere to the design and structure of our constitutional scheme.” (referring to the Tenth Amendment, not the Second) Stevens in his own opinion somehow thinks that regulation of interstate commerce is related to guns…(see the “gun free schools act” decision for more reading) Souter for his part goes back to _The Federalist_ no. 27 to quote: > [@](#): > > Hamilton in No. 27 first notes that because the new Constitution would authorize the National Government to bind individuals directly through national law, it could “employ the ordinary magistracy of each [State] in the execution of its laws.” The Federalist No. 27, p. 174 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Were he to stop here, he would not necessarily be speaking of anything beyond the possibility of cooperative arrangements by agreement. But he then addresses the combined effect of the proposed Supremacy Clause, U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, and state officers’s oath requirement, U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 3, and he states that “the Legislatures, Courts and Magistrates of the respective members will be incorporated into the operations of the national government, as far as its just and constitutional authority extends; and will be rendered auxiliary to the enforcement of its laws.” The Federalist No. 27, at 174-175 (emphasis in original). The natural reading of this language is not merely that the officers of the various branches of state governments may be employed in the performance of national functions; Hamilton says that the state governmental machinery “will be incorporated” into the Nation’s operation, and because the “auxiliary” status of the state officials will occur because they are “bound by the sanctity of an oath,” id., at 175, I take him to mean that their auxiliary functions will be the products of their obligations thus undertaken to support federal law, not of their own, or the States’, unfettered choices. That having been said, I don’t know why I or anyone else bothers to respond to you, since you have shown you will not actually debate this issue fairly. Still waiting for those cites from you… ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2001, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/113 "2001-08-25T18:45:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > **Only to a strict constructionist, willingly bound by the views and contexts of the late 1700’s. It ignores the sense they had, well-documented in both the Constitution itself and the surrounding dicta you take as equally binding, that the world would continue to evolve and that the Constitution and laws would have to evolve with it. They would be very frightened, I believe, of a citizenry that did not continuously think for themselves re-evaluate what is important, but referred to the original writers as the fount of all wisdom, both legal and moral.** Uhh…all you have to do to account for the changing times it to **read the “friggin’” Constitution** , and look at Article V. The authors of the Constitution provided for modifying the Constitution to adapt to changing times --by **Amending it**. The founders did not intend for it to be selectively interpreted in order to fit whatever future political or societal climate might come about. They had the forethought to see that if conditions did warrant change, then it should be done with due care and consideration. And this can only be done with the agreement of two thirds of each house of Congress and three fourths of the State legislatures. This was their intention for changing the Constitution, not by arbitrarily denying the plain language of the Constitution, or pretending that it doesn’t exist. The meaning of the Second Amendment is clear and unambiguous from a historical perspective (IMO). If you, **Elvis** , feel that the right to keep and bear arms needs to be limited, or abolished, then it seems that in order to be intellectually honest you must work for the passage of either a repeal of the Second Amendment, or for modification of its text. It’s not like it can’t be done, you know. The Constitution has been changed before. Like Captain Planet says - “The Power is YOURS!” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/114 "2001-08-26T00:54:07Z")
**Elvis:** first of all, calling **UncleBeer** on being a moderator is a cop out; he’s posting (debating) here as another poster. There’s no restrictions on letting the Mods. participate in the various forums, as long as they too follow forum rules. When the Moderators do their Moderator thang, they’ll let the offending poster know, clearly and unequivocally. **Tejota:** > [@](#): > > But if you insist, like some on this board do, that any gun control is bad gun control, them I’m sure you will be disappointed. > > To me, it is self evident, that NO control is just not reasonable, and if we are to have SOME control, then the arguments need to be about the merits and drawbacks of particular control schemes rather than about whether or not the 2nd ammendment is a personal right or a collective one. I may not be understanding you correctly; are you implying that our current spate of gun laws are analogous to “NO control”? I may not be the most prolific poster, but I can’t remember anyone here on the SDMB advocating no control. Even those of us advocating liberalizing aspects of current controls are not advocating no control. And whether the right is individual or collective is essential, because of the various (mis)interpretations of the militia. To many pro-controllers, the militia is the National Guard. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. They completely ignore 10 USC 311, and the Selctive Trainign and Service Act. They also completely ignore the journals of the founding fathers, the writings and records of the Debates surrounding the Constitutional Convention, or, like Michael Bellesiles, attempt to rewrite history to suit their political ends. > [@](#): > > Their decision rules out a literal interpretation of the world ‘people’ to mean ‘individual’. Then perhaps you would care to go through the decision, line-by-line, word-for-word, and explain to myself and others exactly how. Before we do that, however, please read the majority opinion delivered by Chief Justice William Rhenquist in [U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez 429 U.S. 259 (1990):](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=494&invol=259) > [@](#): > > The Fourth Amendment provides: [494 U.S. 259, 265] > > “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” > > That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to “the people.” Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase “simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy,” Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, “the people” seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by “the people of the United States.” **The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,”** and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to “the people.” See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 (“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble”) (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 (“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States”) (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. Emphasis mine. > [@](#): > > **ExTank** and **Anthricite,** you are pissing into the wind here. Given the PR might of the NRA, I have no doubt that you can find thousands of quotes that wish otherwise. But the members of the legal community who actually agree with them are the minority. While this statement was already admirably debunked by **Zoff** in a post dated 08-23-2001, 8:35 AM, I’d just like to point out that your implication that the NRA has some kind of hammerlock on history is no less “paranoid” than HCI’s insistence that us gun owners are “paranoid”. > [@](#): > > **ExTank** I asked this very question a few months ago in another thread, and you mislead me. I applaud your consistency, but I’ve done my own research since then. Careful, friend. That’s closer to calling me a liar than anyone has dared to in a very long time. I applaud your diligence and skepticism. Which is why your conclusion is all the more perplexing, and hence my invite to go through _U.S. v. Miller_ line-by-line. The fact that many different people have arrived at similar conclusions would tend to indicate a severe schism of worldview and apprehension, and not a deliberate attempt on my part at obfuscation. > [@](#): > > Also, **ExTank** I’m disappointed that you choose to hijack your own novel thread idea idea back into the tired old debate that really already been decided against you by the SC. If you’ve read the thread, I didn’t start the thread down this track, attempted to ignore it for a abit, and, you’ll notice, in my post on 08-20-2001, 12:26 AM, I did indeed attempt to steer the thread back on-topic. I’d have better luck holding my breath and swimming down for a good first-hand look at the Titanic. Once these things get going, it’s like an avalanche, with its own inevitable majesty (and tragedy). Since any conversation relevant to the OP seems played out, I’m going with the flow. Whoops! Spoke too soon. Not to overlook **Captain Amazing’s** amazing attempt to address the OP at the end of page two of a gun control debate (even though that’s not what it started out to be): > [@](#): > > but commenting on the OP, Ex-tank, wouldn’t it make sense, like BF said, that location determines your gun politics more than party? I’m I’m a democrat in a district where a lot of people have guns and are big gun fans, it would make sense for me to be pro-gun. Likewise, if I’m a Republican somewhere they hate guns, I’d probably be anti-gun. Indeed, it very well may. If you look at the breakdown of the last election by county, it would seem to bear that out. With the odd exception here-and-there, the further away from any major urban center one got the more likely it went to Pres. Bush. Since no one’s jumped on my interpretation of the electoral process, I’m going to assume for the time that it is correct. Given that, perhaps the Dems. wish to court a wider (more diverse) electorate. Politics of inclusion and all that. By softening (or simply stating that they are re-evaluating) their stance on gun control, maybe they hope to gain larger majorities in Congress and thus control the legislative agenda with more authority. Hence my statement that actions would speak louder than sound bites and editorials, but that the turn of events are potentially heartening to moderate gun owners such as myself. **RT:** > [@](#): > > **Una** - it’s hard for me to believe that anyone sees, in this court, a “liberal judicial activist slant”, given that Sandra O’Connor, a woman somewhat to the right of the late Richard Nixon, is its ideological fulcrum. But one should never underestimate the power of paranoia, I suppose. Perhaps the executive leadership of _both_ sides of the debate fear a definitive ruling would force them to go and find real work. 😛 Seriously, though, I don’t know if any person or organization can simply challenge a law in that manner. Doesn’t someone have to run afoul of the law, and then challenge it, up thought the various levels of the judicial system? **Elvis:** (in response to **UncleBeer** ) > [@](#): > > A direct answer from one of you, at least. No, a supposition, which isn’t an answer. If it’s answers you want, conduct a poll. Be sure to include the questions concerning hw many drunk driving fatalities per year are acceptable, as well. And how many children per year can be run over in school crossings. Or killed in house fires. Or poisoned by household cleaning agents. Or killed from falls. I’m willing to bet that the general answer will hover somewhere around zero in all instances. Which is absurdly unrealistic. In all instances. A question I’ve asked of anti-gun types until I’m blue in the face, and never had answered: _ **WHY THE SINGULAR FOCUS ONLY UPON FIREARM FATALITIES!?** _ Where is your civic activism for all of the people dying from automibile accidents, which outpace gun deaths? And accidents are, by definition, preventable, while the underlying propensity for violence in a society isn’t. It is only correctable through social change (education and such). There is no other direct comparison for America in comparing firearm violence rates; no other country that I can think of has the same diversity of religions, ethnicity, cultural and political backgrounds, etc. None. For all we know, sociologically speaking, America might be an anomaly in that we haven’t flown apart at the seams (yet) and started killing one another in a bloody civil war. Our crime problem and its attending violence may be a very small price to pay for the attending diversity we have. Hell, we have more people beaten to death with bare hands than England has total homicides. Gotta repsect that kind of sheer bloody mindedness. ---
**Author:** ![Kalashnikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kalashnikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalashnikov)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/115 "2001-08-26T02:21:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ExTank \* > \*\*\*\*For all we know, sociologically speaking, America might be an anomaly in that we haven’t flown apart at the seams (yet) and started killing one another in a bloody civil war. \*\* Err… we did, once. Strange that some people keep insisting that “it can’t happen here”. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/116 "2001-08-26T20:17:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ExTank \* > I may not be the most prolific poster, but I can’t remember anyone here on the SDMB advocating no control. I’ll take that - it seems to be implied as inherent in “shall not be infringed”. If that isn’t what the second-half-of-the-Second-Amendment hardliners mean in their quasi-religious incantations, let’s hear any of 'em explain why not. > [@](#): > > A question I’ve asked of anti-gun types until I’m blue in the face, and never had answered: _ **WHY THE SINGULAR FOCUS ONLY UPON FIREARM FATALITIES!?** _ Where is your civic activism for all of the people dying from automibile accidents, which outpace gun deaths? And accidents are, by definition, preventable, while the underlying propensity for violence in a society isn’t. It is only correctable through social change (education and such). OK, I’d left that alone because of its fallaciousness, but it appears you’re serious. There IS a great deal of “civic activism” regarding auto fatalities, and has been for decades. Or are you complaining about heavy bumpers, seatbelt laws, drunk driving checkpoints, and so forth? How about simply having to pass a basic test to get a driver’s license, something gun owners generally don’t have to do? Please stay with facts. But cars are meant for practical purposes, and the goal is to minimize misuse to make them safer for everyone. No argument about that, right? But most guns in existence are _intended_ to be able to hurt or kill people. The ones with practical uses are a small minority, and even those are susceptible to misuse (how many hunters are killed each year?). Yet any kind of controls to force responsibility on people not inclined to do so themselves is fought by the gun lobby. You mentioned accidents - yes, they happen with guns, too, but even simple preventive measures as trigger locks are described another step down the slippery slope to fascism. I’m glad you mentioned that there’s a propensity for violence in society and that it isn’t preventable. Given your premise, doesn’t it follow automatically that society needs to be protected from it, since it’s going to exist? Do the violent people have rights that trump the rest of ours’? Surely the opposite is true. > [@](#): > > There is no other direct comparison for America in comparing firearm violence rates; no other country that I can think of has the same diversity of religions, ethnicity, cultural and political backgrounds, etc. None. Copout. The anti-control platform is based on fear of what might happen. When presented with an example of what _has_ happened, in as similar circumstances as you’ll find, it’s incumbent upon them to address it. Otherwise, it looks like simply denying any facts which are inconvenient. > [@](#): > > For all we know, sociologically speaking, America might be an anomaly in that we haven’t flown apart at the seams (yet) and started killing one another in a bloody civil war. Also counterfactual, as already noted. > [@](#): > > Our crime problem and its attending violence may be a very small price to pay for the attending diversity we have. There are many other highly-diverse countries with orders of magnitude less gun killings. Got any idea why? > [@](#): > > Hell, we have more people beaten to death with bare hands than England has total homicides. Gotta repsect that kind of sheer bloody mindedness. If that was a joke, I for one am not laughing. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/117 "2001-08-26T22:58:25Z")
**kalishnikov:** I was referring to something more along the lines of the Balkans; Italians shooting the Irish, the Irish shooting the Poles, the Poles shooting the Jews, the Jews shooting whomever… **Elvis:** > [@](#): > > If that isn’t what the second-half-of-the-Second-Amendment hardliners mean in their quasi-religious incantations, let’s hear any of 'em explain why not. Isn’t this argument analogous to saying all caucasians are neo-Nazis because some are? But the explanation is simple: reasonable restrictions can be placed upon a right for public good. Exactly whose definition of reasonable we’re using to determine where that line is drawn, and how often and how far it should be moved, is the crux of the debate. > [@](#): > > OK, I’d left that alone because of its fallaciousness, but it appears you’re serious. So which concerns you more as a person and activist: untimely, preventable deaths or untimely, preventable _firearms_ deaths? That’s the heart of that question. You suppose that by enhanced gun control, untimely preventable deaths can be reduced. Yet there are categories of untimely, preventable deaths with higher death rates than untimely, preventable _firearms_ deaths. > [@](#): > > How about simply having to pass a basic test to get a driver’s license, something gun owners generally don’t have to do? Please stay with facts. My fact checker just went off: you don’t need a license to own a car; just to operate one on public roads. Like the permit (license analog) that I had to obtain to carry my concealed weapon on my person in public. > [@](#): > > But cars are meant for practical purposes, and the goal is to minimize misuse to make them safer for everyone. No argument about that, right? Unless you are speaking of generally after-market LOJAC or remote ignition kill switches for stolen vehicles, then yes, I do disagree with you. The majority of legislatively mandated innovation in automotive engineering has been concerned with occupant safety, not preventing misues. Otherwise, breathalyzers would be built into the cars ignition system, to prevent drunk driving. Mechanical and electronic engine and drivetrain governors would be mandated to eliminate speeding and high-speed pursuits. > [@](#): > > But most guns in existence are intended to be able to hurt or kill people. The ones with practical uses are a small minority, and even those are susceptible to misuse (how many hunters are killed each year?) “Practical Use” is entirely subjective depending upon whom you ask; some would say guns have no practical purposes outside of military and police applications, others would disagree. For the purposes of logical debate, subjective value judgements should be kept to a minimum. I can’t say how many hunters are killed each year. Oops. Spoke to soon. [The National Center for Health Statistics](http://www.cdc.gov/nchswww/) (an agency of the Center for Disease Control) says in their report [Deaths: Final Data for 1998](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_11.pdf) that there were a grand total of 886 accidental firearms deaths in the U.S.A. for 1998. That’s down from 1,357 in 1994. How many of them are hunters? Dunno. The CDC just lists them as “accidental or unintentional.” My fact checker must be broken; it won’t stop buzzing: > [@](#): > > Yet any kind of controls to force responsibility on people not inclined to do so themselves is fought by the gun lobby. You mentioned accidents - yes, they happen with guns, too, but even simple preventive measures as trigger locks are described another step down the slippery slope to fascism. Your repetitive use of the term “gun lobby” isn’t winning you any points. But you are incorrect: the N.R.A. encourages and supports both trigger locks and approved storage devices for firearms. Sarah Brady and H.C.I. will tell you otherwise, but it’s a flat-out bald-face lie. What the N.R.A., the A.C.L.U., myself and others oppose is government mandated (and thus subject to government inspection _in our homes!_) trigger locks and storage devices. A non-binding Congressional motion supporting use of trigger locks and storage devices was supported and endorsed by the N.R.A. and other pro-gun organizations and groups. Ya see, it’s another one of those pesky liberties we “gun nuts” cherish (along with the 2nd Ad.): the 4th Amendment. Check it out. Cool stuff there, too. > [@](#): > > I’m glad you mentioned that there’s a propensity for violence in society and that it isn’t preventable. Given your premise, doesn’t it follow automatically that society needs to be protected from it, since it’s going to exist? Do the violent people have rights that trump the rest of ours’? Surely the opposite is true. I said it wasn’t preventable; how you got from there to “it’s going to exist” (future tense) is beyond my mere cognitive abilities. I said it was correctable, through the encatment of social policies designed to ensure economic opportunity, thus reducing, and hopefully eliminating the impetus among the economically disaffected to seek a life of crime. Besides: who delegated me, you or Sarah Brady to be the protectors of society? A rather arrogant presumption to take with free citizens, don’t you think? Citizens serve society when called upon to do so; they don’t usurp prerogitives. And, if you listen to “international opinion” the U.S.A. is either horrible, horrible people for tolerating so much crime; or we’re horrible, horrible people for locking up so many violent criminals. Basically, we’re just horrible, horrible _free_ people, so no matter what we do, we’re pissing somebody off somewhere. Tough shit, I says. Damn! This !@#$% fact-checker’s going off again! > [@](#): > > Copout. The anti-control platform is based on fear of what might happen. When presented with an example of what has happened, in as similar circumstances as you’ll find, it’s incumbent upon them to address it. Otherwise, it looks like simply denying any facts which are inconvenient. Copout? Tell that to Prof. David Kopel, NYU School of Law. He wrote a book about it called _“The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies?”_, named 1992 Book of the Year by the American Society of Criminology Division of International Criminal Justice. And he’s about as ardently pro-gun as you’ll find. There are major differences historically and socially between us and Canada, much less us and England. And I’d rather be accused of denying or otherwise ignoring incomplete or inconsistent _data_ than of outright fabrication (“43 times” and “13 children a day”). > [@](#): > > Also counterfactual, as already noted. Yes; as I indicated to **kalishnikov,** I was refering to a “balkanization”, rather than the fairly bipartisan Civil War of 1861-65. My apologies for not being clearer. > [@](#): > > There are many other highly-diverse countries with orders of magnitude less gun killings. Got any idea why? Name them. There are also several homogenous societies with tight gun control and _more_ firearm related crime: Mexico, Brazil and Russia. > [@](#): > > If that was a joke, I for one am not laughing. It was, and you have a timd sense of humor. To my way of thinking, that kind of stat hangs a big “Don’t Fuck With Us!” sign on our country. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/118 "2001-08-27T02:07:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ExTank \* > > > [@](#): > > > > If that isn’t what the second-half-of-the-Second-Amendment hardliners mean in their quasi-religious incantations, let’s hear any of 'em explain why not. > > Isn’t this argument analogous to saying all caucasians are neo-Nazis because some are? No, that was an attempt to answer a question you asked. Yes, the shrillest advocates for the extreme of any position tend to be seen as the spokesmen for it. There are examples of such hardliners on this very thread, but not many gun-rights advocates willing discuss the reasonability of some controls. I’m glad you’re one. > [@](#): > > So which concerns you more as a person and activist: untimely, preventable deaths or untimely, preventable _firearms_ deaths? That’s the heart of that question. _All_ untimely, preventable deaths are of concern. When they’re caused by items that are _intended_ to cause deaths, it’s not a stretch to say that a higher percentage of those deaths are preventable, and should be prevented. That’s without getting into injury rates, which should be roughly proportional. Other areas of society may be harder to work on, and still leave higher incident rates, but the overall total is what matters. Each is a tragedy, but some tragedies are more preventable than others. I hope that moral calculus is clear. > [@](#): > > My fact checker just went off: you don’t need a license to own a car; just to operate one on public roads. Like the permit (license analog) that I had to obtain to carry my concealed weapon on my person in public. As if you’d own a weapon without ever even considering the possibility of using it? Are you suggesting that there should be licenses to fire guns, but not to own them? If you’re going to use analogies, please do so reasonably. > [@](#): > > The majority of legislatively mandated innovation in automotive engineering has been concerned with occupant safety, not preventing misues. No, it’s been aimed at limiting the consequences of either misuse or accidents, whoever is responsible. You brought up the subject of why we “aren’t” trying to cut back on car deaths too - if you don’t like admitting the relevance of the explanation, that’s your problem. > [@](#): > > “Practical Use” is entirely subjective depending upon whom you ask; some would say guns have no practical purposes outside of military and police applications, others would disagree. For the purposes of logical debate, subjective value judgements should be kept to a minimum. You left out hunting and target shooting. As for the other item, I would suggest that “subjective value judgments” are what the _entire_ debate is _about_ - if you’d rather not go there, that says a great deal. > [@](#): > > Your repetitive use of the term “gun lobby” isn’t winning you any points. Gotta use some kind of shorthand. What term would you suggest instead? > [@](#): > > But you are incorrect: the N.R.A. encourages and supports both trigger locks and approved storage devices for firearms. If everyone thinks it’s a good idea, where are they? _Somebody_ is fighting regulation, responsible or not, right? > [@](#): > > A non-binding Congressional motion supporting use of trigger locks and storage devices was supported and endorsed by the N.R.A. and other pro-gun organizations and groups. Non-binding. Heh. > [@](#): > > I said it wasn’t preventable; how you got from there to “it’s going to exist” (future tense) is beyond my mere cognitive abilities. Then read your own words from the next sentence: > [@](#): > > I said it was correctable, through the encatment of social policies designed to ensure economic opportunity, thus reducing, and hopefully eliminating the impetus among the economically disaffected to seek a life of crime. Sure. All we have to do is eliminate poverty and crime will go with it. Even then, you’re qualifying it with “hopefully”. Are you word-picking just for the fun of it? > [@](#): > > Besides: who delegated me, you or Sarah Brady to be the protectors of society? A rather arrogant presumption to take with free citizens, don’t you think? Citizens serve society when called upon to do so; they don’t usurp prerogitives. No, citizens exercising their rights, and working for the betterment of society, is something the anti-gun-control lobby claims for itself. Are you saying that people who disagree with you don’t have the same rights and responbilities of citizenship, but should just shut up? My Hypocrisometer is flashing red. > [@](#): > > And, if you listen to “international opinion” the U.S.A. is either horrible, horrible people for tolerating so much crime; or we’re horrible, horrible people for locking up so many violent criminals. Basically, we’re just horrible, horrible _free_ people, so no matter what we do, we’re pissing somebody off somewhere. > > Tough shit, I says. Damn! This !@#$% fact-checker’s going off again! Where the hell did you get THAT from anything ANYONE has said here? > [@](#): > > Copout? (another pro-gun book cite deleted for space) > Yes, and citing somebody else’s copout doesn’t help. What do YOU think? What ARE the relevant differences, IYHO, that invalidates an inconvenient comparison? If you’ve thought about it yourself, you must have some idea. > > > [@](#): > > > > There are many other highly-diverse countries with orders of magnitude less gun killings. Got any idea why? > > Name them. Now, I’m getting pretty sure you’re arguing just for fun, or to avoid something. Get the list of nations of Western Europe, Canada, and Australia for a start. Sheesh. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/119 "2001-08-27T02:58:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ExTank \* > \*\*Indeed, it very well may. If you look at the breakdown of the last election by county, it would seem to bear that out. With the odd exception here-and-there, the further away from any major urban center one got the more likely it went to Pres. Bush. Since no one’s jumped on my interpretation of the electoral process, I’m going to assume for the time that it is correct. Given that, perhaps the Dems. wish to court a wider (more diverse) electorate. Politics of inclusion and all that. > > By softening (or simply stating that they are re-evaluating) their stance on gun control, maybe they hope to gain larger majorities in Congress and thus control the legislative agenda with more authority. Hence my statement that actions would speak louder than sound bites and editorials, but that the turn of events are potentially heartening to moderate gun owners such as myself.\*\* I don’t know if you’re going to see either national party change their stance drastically. The Democrats get enough money from the anti-gun groups and the Republicans get enough money from groups like the NRA that I don’t know that either party would really like to shoot themselves in the foot (sorry) by offending them. I also don’t think it’s an important enough issue with enough people that either side feels they need to change their stance to get votes. Even though this is a controversial issue, I don’t think you’ll find it on a list of the top 5 or even top 10 issues that people are concerned about. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/120 "2001-08-27T04:11:08Z")
**Anthracite** ’s description of how to amend the [Constitution](http://www.movieprop.com/OtherInterests/Political/usconstitution.htm) is incorrect. The fifth article provides that the constitution is only changed when an amendment is ratified by 3/4 of the states. This ratification may occur by the legislatures or by conventions. Congress decides which method is used in the states. Amendments may be proposed by Congress ( when 2/3 of both Houses agree ) or by a convention of the states called for such purpose ( called for “_on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States_” ). There are a couple specific restrictions on amendments only one of which is still relevant. More importantly, **Anthracite** overlooks the most fundamental manner for changing the Constitution. The mercantile and landed elite that decided to break from the old country justified their action by positing a natural right of The People to “_alter or to abolish_” the current regime. That this claim to democracy was hypocrisy ( as Adams famously alludes to ) is unimportant. This democratic right is the theoretical underpinning of our system. The People can change their government and they don’t need to follow the old rules to do so. Did our secession conform to British law? Of course not. Nor was the Constitution constitutional. It violated the [Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union](http://www.constitution.org/cons/usa-conf.htm) ( check the last articles of both documents ). Strict construction went out of fashion in 1937. It is no more influential now than it was before it became the canon in the “Revolution of 1800”. Which is to say, only some. One could argue that this change was due to our democratic right. It certainly was populist. Whatever theoretical arguments are put forth the realpolitik choice at the time is clear. People demanded that the central government do something about the Great Depression. Whether that was done under the Constitution or otherwise, the times they were a changin’. The power brokers decided loose construction was the lesser evil. * * * Just my 2sense _Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment._ - **Thomas Jefferson** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125.md?page=7)