So is your main objection in this case because I used the word “only”?
IANAL, and am confused by this. It almost seems as if you are saying that we can change the Constitution without following the guidelines set forth in the Constitution itself. Is that the case? And has that ever been done after 1800 in the US? 
Yes, Una.
I wasn’t contradicting you just to nitpick; I was using Article V to lead into my main point. I did choose “incorrect” rather than “incomplete” due to your use of “only”.
My point is that our system recognizes the right to change the Constitution without following its guidelines.
The Constitution is founded on this democratic right ( thus “We The People” ). Whether it will happen again or not depends on the muscle of those seeking change. Only if they are powerful enough to get their way will change occur. Of course at that point it is moot whether the previous government recognized the right, or for that matter whether the new regime is popular enough to be considered democratic or not.
I wouldn’t say that this right has been exercised since 1787.
I did say that an argument could be made that this occured in 1937 but I have never seen anyone do so nor would I. I don’t often get into strict v loose debates because I feel that construction is overrated in our judicial system. What I think should matter is precedent. I oppose the idea of judicial activism ( though I’m not above seeing the benefits of the occasional liberal decision since I’ll be paying the price for decisions based on originalism ). The courts should apply the law rather than seek to create it. Writing the law is the job of the representatives we elect for that purpose.
Just my 2sense
We are pious toward our history in order to be cynical toward our government - Garry Wills
That’s a fair criticism, 2sense. My use of “only” was indeed not 100% correct.
Elvis:
And herein lies the great difference: you seem to feel that restrictions upon instrumentality will have the efect you desire, whereas most of us in the pro-gun side do not, or a limited one at best.
People commit crimes. Guns don’t fire on thier own; cars don’t speed or engage in road rage without drivers, drugs don’t sneak up on people and into their bloodstreams.
By addressing and eliminating the underlying causes of the anger, greed and what-not driving the human impulses to pick up a gun and act out, you reduce the violence inherent in the society. I never claimed it would be easy, but the net long-term effect, IMO, will be more beneficial than incrementally restrictive gun control half-measures advocated by an agency with the avowed aim of eliminating private ownership of firearms.
I was using the analogy reasonably, but under the false assumption that we’re on the same sheet of music. My analogy of carrying concealed was to driving on public roads. Obviously, if I’m licensed (a permit holder) to carry concealed, then forethought has gone into the distinct possibility of having to draw and fire (operate) in public.
FYI: in many western states, farm-use only vehicles get temporary tags just to get them to the farm/ranch, where they are never again licensed. This is one of those things you gotta be out on a farm in the country to know, most likely.
This is analogous to my taking my firearms to private property (as most shooting ranges are) to shoot [operate] recreationally. If I own sufficient land, I can sit on my back porch (unincorporated rural areas) and fire (operate) my firearms until the ammo runs out, w/o needing a license or any other form of state sanction.
Which laws, which devices, have been installed into my car to prevent me from speeding? From succumbing to road rage and ramming someone? From deliberately running a pedestrian down?
None. Only laws that punish those actions, and then rely upon my inherent sense of worth to not commit those acts, so as to not get caught and prosecuted, thus surrendering personal liberty. If I have no regard for personal liberty (or haven’t considered the consequences) then there is nothing to prevent me, legislatively or mechanically, from engaging in criminal behavior with an automobile.
Same with the firearms.
There are already sufficient laws in place to deny firearms to the wrong sorts; to allow law enforcement to track firearms and apprehend criminal sellers and purchasers. Opposition to new laws needn’t be on ideological grounds. Take mandatory storage and mandatory trigger locks? How do you propose that those laws be enforced proactively to prevent misuse, theft and accidents? Without stepping all over the 4th Amendment?
IMHO, they cannot; they can only be used reactively, that is in response to an incident that has already transpired. Thus the emphasis by us pro-gun types that basic education and training (another recent Gun Control thread) raises the level of awareness and consequence prior to any act taking place.
Essentially, as I see it, we both agree that prevention is the cure; but the manner and implementation of our respective methods of prevention are in dispute.
Because subjectively speaking, it turns into “he said/she said/they said”. When discussing a national policy which will effect approximately 50% of the American population, I much prefer objectivity and facts, such as they may be found here-and-there. If you’d rather not go there…
How about pro-gun? pro-rights? anti-control?
You assume the opposition is against the legislation because they propose safe storage and use of trigger locks? Again: consider implementation of such laws; the 4th Ad. implications of mandatory storage laws and mandatory trigger locks. How will it be enforced proactively, as most pro-control types want? Remember, the goal is to prevent accidents and misue.
Not every 2nd. Ad tpye is just about guns; having spent a lot more time around them than you have (I’m quite willing to bet), I can say with considerable confidence that it is a quite small minority. Thus the NRA, the 2nd Ad. Foundation, the CCRKBA and others oppose such laws.
It has nothing to do with the practical use of trigger locks or storage devices.
No, I’m trying to see a way to reduce criminal misuse of firearms without undue restrictions upon the members of society who can behave themselves. If the need for instruments of violence for criminal purposes are reduced or eliminated, the need to restrict, infringe or even suspend the rights of free citizens goes with it.
That must be due to your proximity to it. You will not find extravagant claims about “what all Americans want” coming out of Chuck Heston’s mouth. Sweeping claims by Sarah Brady that “all Americans want sensible gun control” is factually correct without revealing that her version of sensible gun control is the elimination of firearm ownership by private citizens. H.C.I.'s now just smart enough to not come out in the open and say it anymore, which would leave them with a vastly depleted membership and support base. They are instead content to whittle, one law at a time, at the 2nd Ad. Licensin, registration, mandatory storage, mandatory trigger locks, restrictions by type, caliber, appearance, etc., all add up to eventually the only gun you can own is the non-functioning replica from Sharper Image to set upon your shelf.
Sorry, my editing wasn’t up to snuff. It should have read like this:
[quote]
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.
Of course. The differences seem less when discussing Canada, but they are there. But let me address England and Japan. Both have long feudal histories, where the common people (peasants) were denied the use and possession of arms, where obediance to your lord and master was mandatory. Or else. Those who owned and possessed arms were the nobles; the elite, the educated and wealthy. Or, like the Samurai, the elite warrior caste, beholden to a liege lord and no one else.
Or Australia: a penal colony. Of course there wouldn’t be widespread use of firearms. Who the hell wants a country of criminals armed? The British troops and settlers, perhaps, had them. But again, you have wealthy land owners and professional soldiers, while the commoners (convicts, ex convicts and the decendants of them) largely did without. With a vastly desolate interior and an indigenous population even more primitive than the native Americans, their frontier culture is a mere shadow of ours.
And all three are fairly ethnically and religiously homogenous. Even the differences between Catholic and Protestant is still a bone of contention in the U.K., and they’re essentially the same religion, with minor points of difference doctrinally.
Now America has dozens of ethnic groups: Anglo, Scots and Irish (with their historical animosities); Frech, Germans, Poles, and Italians (with their historical animosities); Russian*****, Lithuanian, Georgian, Estonian and Finn (with their historical animosities); Chinese, Japanes, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Cambodian and Phillipine (with their historical animosities) perhaps hundreds. Catholics, Protestants (of every stripe), Orthodox (Greek and Russina), Jews, Muslims, Animists…
Have you ever casually suggested to a Puerto Rican that there’s not much difference between them and Mexicans? Or Cubans? If so, how are the new teeth doing?
How’s about going into an Irish Pub and, in an English accent, shouting “God Save The Queen!” I’ve seen Irish Pubs in America with donations jars for the I.R.A. Calling the militias “terrorists” is a sure way to get an extended stay in an I.C.U.
There are historical, social, political and cultural differences that may invalidate the policies of one applying to another. Most have feudal/autocratic histories, and culture based upon it (the Russians just substituted one set of autocrats with another in their revolution). The Brits still venerate the royal family to superstar status. Outside the Northeast, the Kennedy’s are just another bunch of wealthy degenerates.
***** Considering the scope of the Russian Empire (and the Soviet Union) you can just about guarantee that any country whose name ends in “-stan” hates ethnic Russians, Beylorussians and Georgians. Hell, the Georgians don’t even like the Russians.
I’m also getting extremely pissed at your cavalier dismissal of any pro-gun source while quoting H.C.I. chapter and verse. I (and others) have cited from FindLaw, the Supreme Court, U.S. Code, quotes and exerpts from the people who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the extensive research conducted by the F.B.I. and the Centers For Disease Control and at least one legal scholar, and you have yet to even address them, much less refute them. Your free ride’s over.
Don’t make me pull out Cecil on your ass.
Sorry to disagree with you ExTank (and contribute to the hijack, but in England, at least, there is a tradition of weapon ownership by the common people. In fact, at times in England, weapon ownership and training were mandatory. You see sports like tennis being outlawed because it’s taking time away from weapons training. The feudal levy, which was the concept that everyone owed military service upon request to their lord, developed into the millitia system enshrined in English common law (and passed over to America), where everyone had an obligation to bear arms for the state.
This just sets my teeth on edge. I undertook at great length in this thread to quash the ridiculous idea that there is a valid analogy to be made between driver’s licenses and gun licenses. Yet here we are, just two months later, and already it’s popping up again. You have already gone back and forth with ExTank on this a little. Nevertheless, as this is a particular pet peeve of mine, either go read that thread, or so help me I am gonna hijack this one to disabuse you and anyone reading this thread of that absurd notion.
You avoided ExTank’s question here, and I don’t believe he has called you on it, so I am going to. Why not agitate to prevent auto manufacturers from making cars able to go higher than the highest speed limit? And while we’re at it, why not lower those speed limits? Both of these things would save lives, more than would be saved with any gun control proposals on the table. Aren’t you in favor of saving lives?
Another fallacy. I have asked this question before, and not gotten an answer, perhaps you will be so kind. If guns can only be used to kill people, why do police officers carry them?
Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Or maybe to help prevent people from being hurt or killed.
Or maybe to stop those in the process of killing or hurting a person.
To use your logic, all matches were designed and intended to start fires. Fires are bad, they cause death, injury and major damage. So let’s get rid of matches?
Put it this way: A criminal bent on mayhem WILL have a weapon. Read that again: A crook, robber or rapist WILL have a weapon to do his (or her) dirty deed.
That weapon may be a gun, it may be a knife, it may be a machete, a slingshot, a baseball bat or a length of heavy chain. It could be a broken table leg, brass knuckles, an aluminum MagLite. The weapon could be a car, a broken beer bottle, a stick, a screwdriver, nunchuks, a broomhandle or a rabid dog. Various bad guys have also used forks, shards of glass, fenceposts, used syringes, rolls of quarters, lamp cords, molotov cocktails and golf clubs as weapons.
Perhaps most often of all a criminal will use what’s legally known as “disparity of force” as his weapon- he’s bigger, stronger, more hopped-up on drugs or even just has the element of surprise. Maybe he has better “street fighting” skills or is simply acting more agressive.
The typical example is the stereotypical 280lb man attempting to rape the 120lb woman. But disparity of force can also encompass the 120lb man- up on drugs or just with surprise and adrenaline on his side- attacking a 280lb man from his blind side.
The criminal WILL have his weapon, whatever that weapon may be.
Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws.
A law which bans or severely restricts firearms, affects only those who obey the law.
So what would that leave us? That’s correct: The criminals still have all the weapons they had before, except that now, the Joe Average Victim can no longer carry the best, most effective all-around countermeasure to a personal attack.
Now how smart is that?
Captain Amazing:
Are you referring to the acts of King James II? How long did it go on? Why was it abandoned around the beginning of the 20th Century?
Why were Britons advertising in American newspapers during WW II for individual Americans to sell them their firearms?
There may have been a tradition around the 17th & 18th Century, during the Catholic/Protestant troubles, but it doesn’t seem to have made much of an impact, culturally speaking, on today’s mass of Britons.
Elvis:
I’m now also calling upon you to address both mine and Anthracite’s posts concenring the english definition of militia, 10 USC 311 “classifications of the militia”, the Selective Training and Service Act, and their relation to the evident definition of the militia as evinced by Hamilton in The Federalist Papers, and his other contemporaries.
As far as I’m concerned, this debate is over until you have addressed them with something more credible that your personal disdain.