The full District of Columbia code is available online from NEXIS publishing here. 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.
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.
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)
: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.
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.
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.
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.
This looks like a candidate for your slippery slope thread.
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.
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.
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.
Without a gun, drive-by ‘murderous will killings’ are exceedingly rare.
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.
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.
Good lookup. Your point?
It’s really best if you respond to the words I’ve typed, rather than to what the little voices are saying.
Well, then he can still cut you to ribbons, and likely kill you anyway. Just less efficiently and more painfully.
Thanks! None, really. What exactly was your point in asking for their names?
It’s really best if you (read and) respond to the words I’ve typed, rather than to what your little voices are saying:
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
Even if individuals, people act collectively. What’s YOUR point?
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.
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.
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:
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.
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!”
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:
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.
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):
Emphasis mine.
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”.
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.
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):
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:
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also counterfactual, as already noted.
There are many other highly-diverse countries with orders of magnitude less gun killings. Got any idea why?
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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 (an agency of the Center for Disease Control) says in their report Deaths: Final Data for 1998 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:
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 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? 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”).
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.
Name them. There are also several homogenous societies with tight gun control and more firearm related crime: Mexico, Brazil and Russia.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gotta use some kind of shorthand. What term would you suggest instead?
If everyone thinks it’s a good idea, where are they? Somebody is fighting regulation, responsible or not, right?
Non-binding. Heh.
Then read your own words from the next sentence:
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?
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.
Where the hell did you get THAT from anything ANYONE has said here?
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.
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.
Anthracite’s description of how to amend the Constitution 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 ( 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
