Have you read Heller?
Then I guess it would depend on how the gun ban is being implemented. There are millions of guns in the US, and no way to find out where they all are and who owns them.
Can I keep guns for hunting? In that case, I keep guns for hunting. If not, what are the consequences for owning a gun?
Do I have to prove I don’t have guns, or will the government take my word for it? What is the sentence if I possess a gun?
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, I just got done reading it. So what? What does that have to do with what I have heard people say is their reason for owning guns?
Sorry, but as I was about to answer these, I could just see the next set of questions being “What will be defined as a gun?” and so on and so forth.
I’m sure you can reason what the poll is supposed to be, without being nitpicky about stuff that doesn’t really matter.
Without thinking about it too much, what if guns were treated like heroin or some other controlled substance? “Gun” being a term that means what most reasonable people would know the definition of.
If you are referring to when people simply reference the 2nd amendment as their reason, it’s typically a way to respond to people who are in favor of gun control. Similar to how if you ask a person why they are standing on a public sidewalk, they could elaborate that they are waiting to meet a friend, but because the question itself is unnecessary, simply saying “because I can” is sufficient to tell the person to mind their own business.
Did reading Heller clear up your misconception about the 2nd amendment recognizing a pre-existing right, rather than granting one?
the fair market value of my guns would be a life-time cadre of police officers guarding me 24/7.
I wasn’t aware that I had a misconception about the 2nd amendment recognizing a pre-existing right. Can you show me any evidence of this?
But it seems like that ISN’T their reason, according to some in this thread, the real reason is because owning a gun is a God-given right as a human being.
You seem to be conflating ideas, though of course all people differ in their reasons. Recognizing a pre-existing right whether god given or a natural right, is a fact, not necessarily a reason.
Saying, because the 2nd amendment is used often times to avoid further argument with gun control supporters. There is no retort to that. It’s like when an adult says to a child, “because I said so” - while not a perfect analogy, it’s close enough.
It’s how I interpreted this post:
If you read Heller, then you’ve heard this view.
Don’t put words in other people’s mouths. No gun owner in this thread has described it as a “God-given right.” You are the one who keeps repeating the phrase. I described self-defense as a human right. It is mine because I am human, not because some government or fictional sky spirit says so.
And another thing – how could you possibly enforce the ban? Police officers are usually conservative and pro-gun. You couldn’t count on them to go around neighborhoods ordering people to give up their guns, or else. Same situation with the military – the rank-and-file are generally very conservative and pro-gun, as well. Any officer that ordered them to confiscate the populace’s guns would likely get a bullet in his brain. They simply wouldn’t stand for it.
No, fair market value is ‘the most probable price that a willing but unpressured buyer, fully knowledgeable of both the property’s good and bad attributes, would pay.’ What’s the fair market value of your car? A cadre of chauffeurs with a stable of different vehicles to drive you around? Or is there a dollar value?
I think his point is that the Heller decision found that there was an individual right to keep and bear arms.
In the view of the Founding Fathers, human rights are a matter of natural law. That is, people are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, and government exists to secure those rights. Rights are not granted by the government or the Constitution - they exist apart from that.
Certain of those rights - that is, some but not all of those rights - are enumerated in the Constitution, and thereby brought under the purview of the federal government to protect. Other rights exist, but they are not the business of the federal government. James Madison was afraid that people would think that only enumerated rights existed, so the Ninth Amendment was enacted to make it clear that other rights can exist. The Tenth Amendment says who is responsible for recognizing those other rights, and who may bring those rights under the protection of the federal government, or protect them in other ways.
The Tenth Amendment says that any power not explicitly given to the federal government belongs to the states, or the people. The power of enumerating rights not already in the Constitution is not assigned to the federal government. Therefore, the federal government may not decide that a new right exists. The states or the people may, but they don’t have to, nor can they be prevented from doing so if they wish.
IOW people who say they own guns because they are exercising their Second Amendment rights are using a shorthand for “The Founding Fathers believed I have a God-given right to keep and bear arms, and the Second Amendment means that the government cannot infringe on that right”.
The whole purpose of the Ninth Amendment is to make clear that people who say that rights are granted or withheld by the government are wrong.
IOW the right to keep and bear arms is a God-given right protected by the federal government. There are other God-given rights protected by the government, like freedom of speech and freedom of religion and so on. There are also God-given rights that are not protected by the government. What are they? The power to determine that belongs to the states or the people. Not the Congress, not the Supreme Court, not the President - the states or the people.
It’s an important point to keep in mind, because of something I asked earlier. If the Second Amendment is actually repealed thru due process and not simply interpreted out of existence by the Supreme Court, then that is a legitimate exercise of the power of the states or the people to decide what rights have been granted by God and should be protected by the federal government. If it were the Supreme Court simply saying the Constitution doesn’t say what it says, that is illegitimate because the power to determine what rights exist is not granted to the federal government.
So, again, the right to keep and bear arms does not exist because the Constitution says so. It exists because men are endowed with that right by their Creator, and it is under the protection of the federal government because the Constitution has been ratified.
Regards,
Shodan
this is a nation of “do-it-yourselfers”. Privately we probably have more home-owned machine shops per capita than any other nation. Guns would be replaced at a rate greater than removed.
Fair enough, I’ll refrain from using that phrase in the future.
Do you similarly believe that Freedom of the Press is a right inherited by you simply because you are a human being?
Do you feel that people in other countries that have stricter gun laws have their “right to self-defense because I’m a human being” curtailed in some way?
and thus the fair market value of personal protection is the replacement value of that protection.
Those are my terms. Arguing over it isn’t your option.
First, thank you for a non-nitpicky informative answer, I appreciate it.
Second, you are not allowed to use “God-given rights” - see poster above
Third, it sounds like you are saying that IF the 2nd Amendment was repealed in accordance with the rules of amendments and so forth (and follow up laws removed the right to bear arms), then you believe that the right to bear arms would be extinguished in a legitimate way. Is that the case, or am I misunderstanding you?
I find it fascinating that you equate your ability to defend yourself with the ability of a cadre of police officers protecting you 24X7.
To be fair, I just did.
I’m not Scumpup, but yes. However, that curtailment is legitimate.
Assuming the citizens of those other countries consent to the stricter gun laws as a people, then that means they disagree that the right to keep and bear arms is a God-given right. Even if I disagree with that idea, it is perfectly legitimate for them to decide otherwise. Their disagreement would be an exercise of their power of self-government. That’s also why a repeal of the Second Amendment in the United States would be legitimate, even if I disagreed with it.
ETA:
Correct.
Regards,
Shodan