Goodie, Another gun debate...

Great Debates
121

pldennison, first of all, I’m not declaring victory and retreating, I’m just retreating. Not because I’ve lost or won but because the discussion has degenerated into name calling and hysteria. But, since you asked nicely, I’ll try this one more time. But this is the last time.

First of all, I’m sincerely trying to help the gun owners of America. I’m a liberal. I listen to NPR. I hang out at wine & cheese parties. I know the anti-gun people. And they think gun owners are nuts. I disagree with that assesment. I think the gun owners have a legitimate interest, and it behooves us to reach a compromise to protect that interest. Without compromise, the extremists of one side or another will win. I don’t think that rational, intelligent gun owners support either extreme, as I certainly support neither the hard-core right-wing Christian theocrats nor the PC radical left “take a piss when the government tells you to” folks (and they do exist).

Guns are inherently dangerous, they’re designed to kill and injure people. For that reason alone we should take every reasonable precaution to minimize accidents and criminal usage.

The Second Amendment does protect individual gun ownership. It does not, and very explicitly, shield gun owners from any regulation, only those regulations that would tend to infringe on the right, i.e. restrict the intended purposes of self defense and defense of the nation.

The existing laws and regulations do not satisfy either side. Crime, accidents, and access by unstable people to powerful weapons is too high for the comfort level of non-gun owners. And I believe the gun owners when they say that existing regulations do little to prevent undesirable use while placing unreasonable burdens and inconveniences on lawful owners. Clearly the existing regulations are flawed.

Extremists on both sides disseminate propaganda, hysteria, and outright lies. One can fight fire with fire, but it is more effective to fight fire with water. In other words, you can fight the propaganda and hysteria of the abolitionists with hysteria and propaganda, or with reason and compromise.

I’m not the enemy of the gun owners unless you choose to make me one. I will never subscribe to your beliefs, but I’m willing to be your ally in defending them. I’m trying to protect your interests while fulfilling my own. I’m absolutely certain such a compromise is possible, but only if the rational and intelligent people on each side of the issue are willing to grant the other side basic legitimacy and engage in a dialog.

Look through my posts. I have consistently accepted the assertion that the interest of owning weapons for self defense and the defense of the nation should be respected and protected. I’m willing to accept the gun owners’ core principles! All I’m asking is that gun owners submit to the reasonable regulation of a legitimate democratic government to ensure responsible exercise of this dangerous interest.

122

Joe Malik,
As a long-time lurker, these points have been argued fairly lucidly, ad nauseam on these boards in the past couple of years. I think if you searched the archives you’d find all number of arguements for and against, and (for me anyway) it has raised a significant concern that the bottom line is, ‘We don’t want any one to own guns for any reason at any time.’ Interpret WE as you will. That’s why I re-joined the NRA after a long hiatus.

If you take umbrage at the (supposed) vehemence aimed at you, it’s because it seems that no matter what facts, statistics, etc., that reasonable firearms owners present (Unca Beer, Ex-T, F2, et al), we’re still just a bunch of militia wanna-be’s runnin’ through the Montana woods with a fully auto-AK47 in one hand and a Budweiser in the other.

123

Posted by Demise in response to my query regarding what reciprocation he’s looking for from the gun control gang:

Just in case you haven’t noticed, we do have gun control via punishment for criminal and dangerous use of firearms. We have it in conjunction with certain bans and restrictions on use, some of which make very little sense, some of which are quite sensible.

Demise, do you only respond to the parts of a post which contain certain words or phrases that push your buttons?

I don’t think we’re in disagreement about the importance of the basic right to bear arms. I have to wonder whether I’m being clear enough. Here’s my position in the simplest way I can express it:

I believe the right to bear arms is a fundamental right of a free people, and that without that right freedom cannot be maintained. I believe further that it is eminently reasonable for a free society to decide which controls and restrictions must be placed on “arms” such that the basic right is not abridged, but public order and safety are preserved.

I’m not willing to budge on either of the underlined sentences above. I’m quite willing, of course, to be educated about specific types of firearms and specific legislative actions, and to engage in reasoned discussion about the relative merits of each.

124

Are they amendable? Yes, technically. However, let us take a gander at Amendment Number Nine:

A reasonable interpretation of the Ninth Amendment (sadly, a much-ignored and overlooked part of the Constitution) would be that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are just that: a list. The people have other rights not on the list (for example, the right to privacy), and the fact that a particular right didn’t make the list does not deny its existence. Looking at this from another angle, that means that changing the list does not change the fact that a right exists. A government that would change the Bill of Rights and deprive the people of any of their enumerated (or, indeed, any other) rights ceases to be a legitimate government.

For the above reason, it would be, at the very least, political suicide for any legislator to even attempt to amend the Bill of Rights. No lawyer I know would dare touch so much as a comma. That leaves us where we are today: interpreting the enumerated right in the Second Amendment out of existence.

125

BF:

Some people do indeed feel that way. Others feel that the government may impose no regulation at all. These people are (by definition) extremists. In this case, I believe neither extreme are correct. xenophon41 and I have explicitly stated that we are willing to abandon the abolitionist extreme to craft a compromise with those gun owners willing to abandon the “no regulation” extreme. If you don’t wish to accept that statement on its face, then just call me a liar. If I cannot even establish good faith, then this conversation is useless.
Max Torque:

I don’t understand your most recent post. Please cite actual Supreme Court or other authoritative judicial sources to clarify and support this assertion.

126

Yes, in fact, I have noticed. I think that the sensible restrictions are far outnumbered by the senseless ones, but I don’t want to go into specifics.

Not exactly. I have very limited time to post, or read posts for that matter. I try to respond to pertinent points, or things that catch my eye, but do not have time to refute or respond to every point made in a post. I pretty much only get to post or browse while code is compiling or while a test is running. I’ve probably spent too much time here in the last several days as it is.

I should also state that I may come off as more of an extremist than I am. I apologize if this is the case.

It isn’t that you aren’t being clear. I may not be clearly stating what I am trying to say, for the reasons listed above. I think that public order and safety are being preserved just fine right now. Any further erosion of our 2nd Amendment rights will not help public order and safety any more; in fact, I believe it will do the opposite.

You have to draw a line somewhere. I think that it was drawn a while back, and subsequent bans and limitations on firearms are pushing further and further into the territory of infringement. There is no need to make more guns illegal. There is no need to make cosmetic alterations illegal. Yet it is happening. Compromise has been made. Further “compromise” isn’t really that, it is giving in and being trampled.

I’m not asking you to budge on your statement. However, I am asking that you look at the situation and realize that public order and safety are actually being eroded because our rights are being abridged.

Too many guns laws are enacted to counteract “what if” events. Some of these events have happened, but they are the exception, not the rule, e.g. school shootings. Far more people die or are injured from murders, rapes, and assaults on an individual basis than will ever be killed or injured in a mass shooting. They deserve the chance to protect themselves, but cannot legally do so in many places.

127

Alright, I see where you’re coming from Demise, and I don’t think you’re an extremist. The only thing I would ask of you (and others) is that you don’t automatically reject new legislation based on a belief that no new law could possibly be useful. (Maybe you’d be right for most laws, but how do you know if you blind yourself with ideology?)

Peace. I’m gonna leave this debate while it’s still on a fairly friendly basis.

128

Mr. Kumquat…

You answered a “sweepingly general” question with an incredibly specific answer based on a rare occurance? Or, rather, were you just being anal? A general question often would call for a general answer, you see.

Because it’s a sign of respect to the person that said that, you (insert Pittish language here). Perhaps you’d like to run a search on “WallyM7”. You may be enlightened.

129

JM, you keep referring to “resonable” gun control measures. Care to share what these are?

Also, you have not addressed why we need more gun control when gun violence is at pre 1968 levels. total gun deaths are around 13,000 per year. Not so outrageous for a country of 270,000,000. And they are declining. Why should we be alarmed?

130

Exactly. What you fail to realize is that the majority of responsible firearms owners are not the extremists. Many of them supported the Brady Bill at face value, ie., the banning of 19 assault weapon types (UZI’s, MAC10’s, etc) (side note, its quite ironic in a way, since Brady got shot by a six shot .38 cal. revolver, IIRC), the passing of Project Exile in Richmond, supported in grass root campaigns by the NRA (BTW, who Hand Gun Control, Incorporated, fails to mention in their literature as a supporter of this measure.) In reality, it became the banning of over 300 hundred models of weapons bought and sold legally in the US. With this kind of underhanded BS (the profane type), its no wonder that the NRA’s membership has ballooned over the last three years.

The press has a field day any time they talk about an incident that is firearms related, and they love to mention that a semi-automatic weapon or an “assault weapon” was used to facilitate this, that, or the other dastardly deed, so consequently John Q. Non-gun-Public thinks that semi-auto and/or assault weapon equals a 50 round machine gun that can blow up a car at 500 yards (for cites please refer to any Dirty Harry, Lethal Weapon 1-infinity, et al. movie for reinforcement.)

So, your willingness to abandon the abolitionist’s extreme is, in a way noble, but the majority of us firearms proponents are tired of the same rhetoric. Again I say, please search the board’s archives if you wish to continue your quest.

131

Sure thing. Quoting Justice Goldberg in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965):

(page 490)

So, the rights enumerated in the first eight amendments are “basic and fundamental.” Can we change the amendments, and thus abrogate the rights therein? Let’s ask Justice Blackmun, who, in his his concurrence in the famous Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), said:

(page 933)

So, fundamental liberties cannot be altered by the democratic process. I cannot WAIT to see how you construe that to mean that ANY of the first ten amendments may be legitimately changed.

132

Max, since xenophon41 has left the building, I’ll just jump in to point out that merely because rights are mentioned in the Amendments to the Constitution doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to change the interpretation, or even the enumeration, of those rights. In fact, we have done so: when the Bill of Rights was passed, many rights were not recognized to apply to women and minorities. Did that make our government “illegitimate” up till the 20th century?

You said that “A government that would change the Bill of Rights and deprive the people of any of their enumerated (or, indeed, any other) rights ceases to be a legitimate government.” But this is so broad as to be meaningless. What are all our “other” rights? They are constantly in flux (as are even our enumerated rights) in the shifts of public opinion, legislature, and the courts. The very opinion from Blackmun that you approvingly cited concerned a case about a woman’s right to an abortion, which many abortion opponents vehemently deny exists. Are they “delegitimizing” the government? Many people feel that the right to equal protection enumerated in the 14th Amendment implies that homosexuals have the right to marry. Is our government now “illegitimate” because it denies that right? Part of what our government is supposed to be doing is deciding what our rights really are and what the enumerations of them really imply. You can’t remove the need for that function by branding it “illegitimate”.

It’s easy to take a stand on a document and declare that some particular interpretation of it is fundamental and can’t be changed. But in reality, it is Constitutional to change even the Constitution, as provided in Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress […] The US can legitimately reinterpret, and even explicitly modify, the wording even of the Bill of Rights (although I join you in thinking we shouldn’t). Declaring it to be a priori off-limits isn’t going to change that.

133

You’re comparing apples and oranges, m’friend. The changes you refer to over the past 200+ years were broadening rights, not restricting them. Very different creatures. Stepping forward, increasing liberty, is a good thing; backtracking, restricting liberty, is a bad thing. Agree?

Absolutely correct, the Constitution does empower Congress to amend the cherished yellow document itself, and the Bill of Rights is not technically exempt. Do you believe, however, that, say, repealing the Fourth Amendment and allowing the government to search anyone, anywhere, anytime, would mean that the right of a person to be secure in his person, effects, and papers would no longer exist? I don’t mean just the textual guarantee; do you believe that the right itself would cease to exist?

And further, do you believe that a Congress that would make such a change is a legitimate, Constitutional entity?

134

Max: You’re comparing apples and oranges, m’friend. The changes you refer to over the past 200+ years were broadening rights, not restricting them. Very different creatures.

Different in effect, but identical in the characteristic I was talking about: i.e., both broadening and restricting represent major re-interpretations, and in some cases actual re-enumerations, of rights.

*Stepping forward, increasing liberty, is a good thing; backtracking, restricting liberty, is a bad thing. Agree? *

Usually, yes, as a general principle. But that general principle (more rights good, fewer rights bad) is not some kind of super-Constitutional law that formally restricts our power to change the Constitution.

*Absolutely correct, the Constitution does empower Congress to amend the cherished yellow document itself, and the Bill of Rights is not technically exempt. Do you believe, however, that, say, repealing the Fourth Amendment and allowing the government to search anyone, anywhere, anytime, would mean that the right of a person to be secure in his person, effects, and papers would no longer exist? I don’t mean just the textual guarantee; do you believe that the right itself would cease to exist? *

Ah, the old natural-rights debate. We’ve been through this before in a few other threads, and the answer (my answer, at any rate) is that the term “right” is not meaningful except insofar as it reflects a serious commitment on the part of society to support that right. Yes, the textual guarantee is not the only aspect of society’s commitment: a totalitarian government might seize power and officially abolish the rights that the society as a whole still felt committed to supporting. But if our society overwhelmingly chose (and this is IMO why the framers required such hefty majorities for Constitutional amendments, so that you wouldn’t get the real will of the people overthrown by a zealous minority) to abandon the right to be secure against such searches and seizures, then yes, in our society that right would no longer exist.

See, there’s no such thing as an “individual right” in isolation from the rest of society. You may claim you still possess some right or other that your society doesn’t recognize, but what does “having” that right really mean in such a case? Unless the rest of society is willing to defend your right and protect you against infringement of it, it’s just wishful thinking.

And further, do you believe that a Congress that would make such a change is a legitimate, Constitutional entity?

Well, it’s not an entity I’d be too comfortable with. But if it made that change according to the legal procedure specified by the Constitution, then yes of course, by definition it would indeed be a “legitimate, Constitutional entity.” How else are we to judge legitimacy and Constitutionality except by the law and the Constitution? Where is it written that I can throw in an exception in order to deny legitimacy to changes I really don’t like? Can abortion opponents throw in an exception to declare that a Congress that recognizes a woman’s right to an abortion is not a legitimate, Constitutional entity?

A question for you, in turn: as I asked before, do you think that there are some non-enumerated rights, such as the right to marry somebody of the same sex (you don’t have to consider that one specifically, I just used it as an example), that our government is currently depriving us of? If so, does that make our current government illegitimate and unconstitutional?

135

Now you’ve done it. This is gonna turn into a gay-marriage debate now :smiley:

136

I have to agree with Max’s fundamental premise. I think there are fundamental, pre-Constitutional interests, from which the Constitution itself flows. The Constitution is a guide for the government, but the citizenry must create and maintain the Constitution and the government using those fundamental interests.

I call them “interests” to distinguish them from “rights”; the latter term more properly applies to legal guarantees.

Our most important task as individuals, perhaps also the most difficult, is to find a rational process and use it to identify those fundamental interests.

I have to disagree with Max’s interpretation of Blackmun’s comments. He holds that the Bill of Rights should not be left to the “whim of an election.” (emphasis mine). He did not attempt to protect them from the people, the electorate or from change, but from a singular election. The intentionally complicated and time-consuming process of amendment as specified in Article V clearly meets this standard. I do agree that the Constitution should indeed not be “interpreted out of existence” by a simple vote of Congress or a singular election.

I don’t necessarily agree that an effort to change the Bill of Rights would necessarily entail political suicide for its proponents. I think perhaps that the commonality of beliefs regarding the fundamental interests underlying any of the amendments is as strong as we would like to believe. Witness the erosion of basic Constitutional rights that has resulted from the drug war and the current assault on the First Amendment while attempting to regulate the Internet.

137

RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!:slight_smile:

Actually I think the reasoning behind that thought is the reason for the divide between us. Please don’t take any offense at this, but we really don’t want your help.

I am not saying we don’t want your help specifically, but we don’t want ANY outsiders coming in and forcing their version of help on us. Of course I am generalizing, but this is the basic difference between conservatives and liberals.
You (sort of) continue this thing with sentences like this:

You see, left to our own devices, we don’t choose to be in this debate. I think by and large that the vast majority of gun owners wish to just be left alone. With the absence of groups like HCI, we really don’t see guns as any big deal. We don’t want to be picking enemies and allies. We really don’t even want to be in this debate.

I’m feeling a little slighted by you. I keep asking a simple question that I can not get an answer to. ** What specific new laws do you seek to pass to regulate firearms?** I am beginning to sense that you really have no idea what laws are already on the books.

I would argue that our gov’t WAS acting illegally. I always turn to the DOI to see how to handle specific abuses.

IOW…The gov’t is allowed, (expected?) to be a little invasive. It is supposed to screw up. We are supposed to try fix it peacefully FOR A LONG TIME. The Constitution was never supposed to the perfect document, but is was the lowest common denominator of process and rights that everyone could agree on. It was a foundation for the country. IMHO it left room to grow, but not room to cut out recogintion and respect for the basic rights listed in the Bill of Rights.
[hijack]Did anyone see the Gateway commercial that lists the Inalienable rights in Gateway country?

I’m thinking about moving there since one of their inalienable rights is to ALWAYS have the newest computer[/hijack]

Spin, spin and more spin. I have images of debating over what “IS” is and “no legal controlling authority” dancing in my head.

138

Neither of these are examples of Liberalism. I listen to NPR quite a bit, and have attended more than my fair share of Wine/Cheese parties.

Please cite the pertinent laws and regulations, to show that you are even somewhat knowledgeable of that which you speak.

Because so far you seem to be talking out your fundament.

Xenophon41:

Wrong. Federal firearms prosecutions have plunged 44% under the current administration.

Joe Malik:

And here again you trip up. There is only a very small, largely ignored “no regualtion” extreme in the pro-gun camp.

The overwhelmingly vast majority say: "No MORE regulation UNTIL the CURRENT regulation is ENFORCED.

What is so damned difficult about the above concept to grasp?

As I stated before, you and most anti-gunners are extremely, if not completely ignorant of:

[ol]
[li]The existing gun control laws;[/li]
[li]Mechanics of firearms;[/li]
[li]Types of firearms;[/li]
[li]Means of legally aquiring firearms;[/li]
[li]Where criminals get there guns;[/li]
[li]Violent crime rates (and their trends);[/li]
[li]Mechanics of realistic self defense scenarios (I wish Glitch were here!);[/li]
[li]The socially and politically acknowledged morality and legality of self defense.[/ol][/li]
If and when you can show even a basic understanding of a few of the above items, then, maybe, you’ll be in a better position to actually debate this issue.

ExTank

139

Joe Malik:

Personally, I find you beneath contempt. Any respect that I ever had for you (and initially, there was some) evaporated by your third or fourth post.

As far as how you regard me, I’m sure that I’ll lay awake at night worrying about what another ignorant anti/pro-gun person thinks about me.

ExTank

140

Freedom2:

Outsiders? We are not both American citizens debating a matter of national policy? I guess not. That has been my fundamental error: Thinking we were both citizens of the same nation.

This is the problem with the Gun debate. The gun owners have set themselves aside from the rest of the citizenry. ExTank and Freedom have shown that no compromise is possible. We are citizens of two different nations.

Let me make this clear. I don’t think Freedom and ExTank are fools because they hold a position different from mine. I think they have foolishly set themselves apart from democracy, from debate and compromise.

I have asked repeatedly for actual examples of such legislation. Since I have received no substantive reply, I have to consider this statement total bullshit until I do. This is a common tactic: Insist on some undefinable or impossible precondition to negotiation; you then can feel self-righteous that by failing to comply with that precondition the other side has shut down negotiations.

I have spent this entire thread trying to understand the interests of the gun owners, trying to find a way to reconcile my interests with theirs, but I have received no response except enmity, contempt and insults. You have made me your enemy, for the sole reason that I do not agree compeltely with your beliefs.

Oh well. By their uncompromising stance the gun owners are hastening the day when all guns are abolished. The day will come when they will have to choose between treason and submission. It is only a matter of time until one of the very extremist “militias” (of course my fellow dopers are not such) chooses to follow McVeigh and strike a blow against a repressive and illegitimate government. The backlash should be impressive. The resulting imposition of regulation will drive more groups to violence, driving more restrictive legislation.

By your own admission the gun owners of America neither have nor want the support of non-gun-owners. We are “outsiders”; not of your country, not of your kind. Without our support the tide of democracy will turn against you. Whether this lack of support stems from ignorance or merely differing beliefs ultimately makes no difference. The end result will be the same: abolition of guns.