You’re very welcome, although it should be noted that if you’d asked me if effective self-defense was a basic right (as you implied earlier), I would have hedged.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to work on my book title.
I’m thinking of something along the lines of Your Rights End At The Tip Of Your Penis, but I fear that may be somewhat exclusive.
But do the NRA have that covered? The SAF was created to pursue legal challenges to gun control laws. The NRA seems to more cover dues collection and mail order collector’s knives.
First off whether self defense is a basic right does not make it a right in the Constitution.
Personally I agree (and have said so before in other threads) that self defense is about as basic a right as you can get. I also personally think privacy is a basic right as well. Neither appear in the constitution but have been read into it (Heller and Roe).
If the right is ok with Heller magicking self defense into the constitution then they better be fine with Roe magicking privacy in there. Again, I personally believe in both those rights as fundamental. I would say they could get included under the 9th myself without attaching them elsewhere.
As for the ACLU they were not agnostic about the 2nd. They have an explicit, written stance on their view of it. That you disagree with that view is fine but neither here nor there. The ACLU take on it was in line with SCOTUS rulings till Heller. It also rests on a legitimate view of the 2nd. You can disagree with it but if you simply assert that there is no other reasonable side then there is no debate to be had with you.
Second I went a few rounds with you recently trotting out “effective” when referring to self defense. What the hell does that mean? If an elephant is charging me effective self defense will be a rather large gun. Effective self defense against a miniature poodle requires something less I’d think. If you prefer it could be a large human versus a little human coming at you…humans come in all sizes and threat levels too and unless you are psychic you cannot say what you will need to provide yourself with “effective” self defense.
I’m not. I’m willing to agree that neither self-defense not privacy is a Constitutional right. The right to keep and bear arms is an explicit Constitutional right, however.
No, the right to free speech is an explicit Constitutional right. The right to keep and bear arms is part of the language that describes another basic Constitutional right.
Sure…as part of a militia.
I know Scalia resorted to some linguistic acrobatics to hand wave it away (putting the lie to Scalia’s claim he is a textualist) but inconveniently it remains. I seriously doubt the FFs just dropped that in there as a rhetorical flourish not meant to actually mean anything.
It meant precisely what it said: the militia. The adult males in the community who could be counted upon to seize their arms and assemble in case of threat.
And it doesn’t say “as part of a militia.” It says that BECAUSE a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the government cannot infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
That is one interpretation, which is neither particularly logical nor obvious, and still makes the assumption that part of the amendment is, as Whack-a-Mole describes it, a “rhetorical flourish”.
No self defense in there at all. If anything it is meant as defense of your country and not of yourself (I am sure the FFs would be a-ok with self defense though). In that light various restrictions on ownership become possible rather than an, “I can have any weapon I want and no one can stop me cuz it is my right!”
Granted.
I disagree that the right to self defense is as heavily magiced as the right to abortion on demand. Abortion requires Gandalf the Grey-level magic, self-defense only Rincewind-level magic.
Actually, within the scope of a Great Debates thread personal opinion and agreement (or disagreement) are here nor there. See General Questions if we want to strip almost all opinion out of threads.
What purpose does my single definition hold? What’s the definition of a “free press” in one, simple sentence which will satisfy anyone?
But since I like to hear myself talk: effective self-defense means that a person should stand a reasonable chance of being able to avoid bodily harm, or to protect other innocents from the same, against an unlawful attacker, by means of hiding, escape, discouragement of said attacker, injury to said attacker, or killing said attacker, if necessary. A 105-pound woman has virtually no chance alone against a fit 250-pound male rapist by using her “kung fu” she learned at a community college 1 night a week, her car keys, or her faith in Jesus. Not none, but virtually none.
Now the discussion moves on as to how effective guns are for saving lives rather than ending them. I did an assload of research with Cecil on this one and the results were published more than a year ago, so I’ll let that speak for me, as my position is unchanged (although actually I believe Cecil was more negative than I would have been). I’m going to be a bit busy this weekend and I fear it might not be possible for me to expound at length in this thread and give your question the attention which it, and you, respectfully deserve.
Quite the reverse actually.
Privacy is seen to be in:
Further, as I noted earlier, I do not believe the militia bit in the 2nd to be a mere piece of rhetoric on the part of the FFs. They did not put rhetorical flourishes anywhere else (barring the preamble perhaps but that has no force of law). Why would you think they did so this one time?
As such the FFs, if anything, were writing this in to denote a means to protect the country and not the individual.
The point is “effective self-defense” is far too vague a term to be used in a legal sense. Since we did this (you and I among others) in this thread and since this is not a thread to debate the merits of guns in self defense I’ll let that thread speak to the above quote for now (FWIW I provide cites and numbers in there too…good or not is for you to decide but just saying it is not all mere opinion from me). Suffice it to say I have issue with using your angle to make guns a worthwhile thing in our society. The downsides far and away outstrip the benefits they provide.
For this thread my point is the ACLU has a different opinion than you on the 2nd Amendment. Their stance is rooted in a legitimate reading of the 2nd Amendment…a reading that stood till Heller. The ACLU is free to disagree with the SCOTUS if they want to. Indeed they do that quite often (they were founded to protect free speech because, in that time, the SCOTUS was rather hard on free speech).
You can of course disagree with them but that does not make the ACLU an agency which only supports the parts of the Constitution they like. They defend the WHOLE constitution. Many times people disagree with the ACLU’s stances on various issues but nevertheless they have been a dogged defender of the Constitution and have not forgotten there is a 2nd Amendment. The OP shows an example where they will defend someone regarding guns if it comports with their reading of the 2nd Amendment (it has also been noted state ACLU offices are free to view the 2nd as they want and apparently some do).
Whoops…you said “abortion”.
Thing is they magicked in Privacy to the constitution then said abortion was a privacy issue thus protected. I agree that last part is a reach.
In that case you missed my point, it’s the NRA that should be pissed about his statement.
Whack-a-Mole, for a person who posted:
…you seem to make a lot of pronouncements from on high as to what you believe the 2nd Amendment means. You’re an admitted gun prohibitionist so I don’t know how there is going to be any possibility of a meeting of the minds when folks discuss this with you.
Why not? I am a gun prohibitionist too, but I happen to think the Second Amendment does enshrine a Constitutional right (though limited) right for individuals to own and carry firearms.
I guess it’s just that I don’t know how either side can convince the other of their respective merits. So other than playing to the audience, there’s not much point in discussion on most subtopics.
And I guess I said earlier I was going to be busy, yet kept posting. Mea culpa.
Pot meet kettle. :rolleyes:
First off how is it a pronouncement “from on high” when I express my opinion? You must have a great regard for me to think my opinions constitute pronouncements from “on high”.
Second, what I believe the 2nd Amendment says is based on this thing called the English language. Call me crazy but I thought that words have meaning and that meaning is not obscure. Scalia & Co., in all but a literal sense, took a pen and crossed out a part of the US Constitution. Don’t like that militia bit? Well, they will just make it go away! They should let Scalia at the original document so he can redact out the militia part with a marker.
And here I thought conservatives had a high regard for the constitution. Such a move should appall you!
Third, when it comes to a meeting of the minds you are at least as reluctant to find common ground as I am. Indeed I would say gun advocates are far more difficult to push into concessions to meet in the middle than gun opponents.
I might wish for all guns to go away but I am also a realist and pragmatic. I would be content with more stringent regulations. The NRA says there are currently 20,000 gun laws in the US…talk about a mess. Make a national law governing gun ownership. Close loopholes like gun shows. Stiffen up the background checking function. Require training (effective training :p) to own a gun. Proper registration of all firearms.
Thing is the NRA/gun advocates screeches like a cat that had its tail stepped on at any regulation. Nevermind how common sense and appropriate it might be.
So, I will meet you in the middle. Help me craft a set of national laws that apply equally to all gun owners in the US that reasonably restrict gun ownership (I presume you are ok with denying them to mentally ill people for instance so that’s a start). My guess is it is you who are the recalcitrant one in this and not me.
As compared to abortion, which doesn’t even have a textual flourish, rhetorical or otherwise.
Are you just purposefully trying to piss me off so I’ll cross a Rule line in Great Debates?
I never said it didn’t apply to me as well. Cite?
…and you hand-wave away the plain English language of the words “the people” when it doesn’t suit you. Let’s apply “the people” in the First Amendment now to only mean a collective right which doesn’t really apply to any individual. In fact, let’s do that to the entire Bill of Rights. I assume you back that 110%. In fact, if you don’t want to be seen as inconsistent and biased, I expect your very next post to say unambiguously that. So let’s see it.
This has been explained to you numerous times. Read the majority opinion in Heller, not the Brady Campaign talking points, or whatever.
And where’s that abortion bit in the Constitution? Can you point out the plain English, as you put it, which allows it? Cite? I did a search for it but doggone it, my search engine must be broken. 
Conservatives have a strong view of personal freedom and individual rights, which often, but not always, outweighs the rights of the collective. The right of an individual to keep and bear arms for personal defense was established before the 2nd Amendment was ever written. If you read the amicus briefs of Heller you would know this by now.
It’s too bad you chose Great Debates to post this deliberate misrepresentation of my position, or I could tell you what I think about it. I’m on record as being in opposition to most pro-gun folks on here in that I support stricter regulation of who can have a firearm.
Um, there already is national law on this. I’ve read the entire US Federal Code on gun ownership. Apparently, you have not. Good grief, even the basest newbie to this issue knows this.
This of course is a deliberate euphemism for “ban all private transfers without government involvement.” There is no gun show “loophole;” the lack of a mandated government background check is a function of private transfers. I thought liberals would be appalled at the continued deliberate misrepresentation of fact!
Sigh…in what way is it failing, exactly? You’re flailing all over the map here. While anything could be made better, that’s not the low-hanging fruit here.
There is no purpose to registration other than a vehicle for confiscation or taxation. Registering a gun in itself saves not one, single, life.
Sort of like pretty much all anti-gun lobbyists and posters on here do right now. I would think a liberal would be appalled at deliberately demonizing one group but failing somehow to include the caterwauls of the other. Remember the wialing of Sarah Brady et al about how CCW legislation would fill the streets with blood and corpses? How road rage shootings would escalate? How’d that work out for you? What’s the crime rate of CCW holders versus the general public, again (hint: you’ll lose this one, but feel free to do the legwork like I have already).
You’d almost think there was bias at play…I’m biased, sure, but at least I have the intellectual honesty to admit it. How about you? Why did you deliberately not include the anti-gun folks in your little demonization above? Explain it to me, in detail, please.
“Common sense” is just code words which mean “make the law like I want it.”
And yeah, let’s make laws based on the good horse sense of the average American idiot. If I show polls saying a majority of Americans believe in flag burning bans, banning same sex marriage, and young earth “theory”, then by golly, we should enact common-sense legislation along those lines. Congratulations, you just put Jesus on that dinosaur. Ride-em Savior, yee haw!
And yet again you deliberately and purposefully misrepresent my position on here. I’m on record as requiring safety and proficiency training for gun ownership, I’m on record for saying there are too many people who shouldn’t have guns who do, I’m on record for being in favor of a two-tiered system of ownership, where handgun ownership would be tied to the restrictions of a CCW license. If I posted before that I struggle with how to balance how to remove guns from the average idiot without trampling their rights then I suppose that is simply because I for one respect the right of effective self defense. I’m on record with age restrictions on ownership as well.
Weren’t you the one who said they were a prohibitionist? How does that line up with your so-called “middle ground?”
Which will be relevant to this discussion when people start performing abortions with guns, and not before.