First off - Agreeing with one opinion as written doesn’t mean that a person would agree with the other positions that person has wrote. The merits of each opinion stand on their own.
Second - I am a strong supporter of both the right to marry who you please, and the right to control your own body (and have an abortion).
The idea that the 2nd amendment recognizes a pre-existing right isn’t novel nor was it original to Scalia or Heller. The Slaughterhouse cases made this argument, and as much of an abomination those cases were, they are still standing. I believe there was some tortured logic in those cases, however the result was that the 14th amendment privileges and immunities which should have been the bill of rights, was instead limited to those rights that accrue as a result of citizenship. Since the 2nd was a pre-existing right, it was not covered by the 14th. This is reiterated in Cruikshank:
The right recognized in the second is an enumerated right. And inherent to it is the right to self defense. This is discussed at length in Heller. This right has a long history, much longer than the jurisprudence around SSM or abortion. But the differences are greater still - the right to SSM or abortion are derived much differently than the right to arms. The latter is specifically enumerated. SSM is through equal protection. Abortion - I actually don’t know…privacy? In any case, saying that SSM and abortion are not supported by the text is obvious. To get there, an end around with equal protection etc. is necessary. This isn’t to say that SSM or Abortion should be illegal - I think the opposite. But it is not inconsistent to have those matters decided at the legislature rather than through the constitution.
Your other question about how one determines what is a basic human right…I subscribe to the theory of natural rights which is more complicated than I have time to write. Suffice to say that I am in agreement with most small l libertarian thinking on these matters. Marry who you want, control your own body, exercise self defense when necessary.
Or someone with thick clothes, or someone behind cover, or someone at range, or multiple simultaneous persons, or large animals, or function without power, etc. Tasers are fine, but they are far from as effective as a modern firearm.
You could have a multi-shot taser that fires independently packed rounds using compressed gas. The power would come from single use batteries packed in the rounds themselves. (10+ year shelf life) Thick clothes, well, a thin kevlar vest will stop all the smaller handguns, so…
I can’t tell how to respond to this. I mean, it’s absurdly rediculous but I also think you may be serious.
Let me know if tasters can fire 50 charges. Or go over 25 feet. I mean shit I don’t even use electronics for my safe why would I want it in my self defense weapon? A 10 year shelf life…ammo had a shelf life that is freaking long. You get hit with Kevlar it’s still going to be a very bad day. When you follow up with 5 more rounds and and practice Mozambique drills it’s going to be an even worse day. Taser into thick clothes and it’s lights out for the taser user.
Tasers have a purpose but a replacement for a self defense firearm is not one of them.
The Taser XREP was a prototype that did everything I said. It’s a shotgun shell, and each shell is separate, so you can unload on somebody with them and the actual gun is simple.
When I said “could be engineered”, I was allowing for this to be developed over time, as well, like 20 years. Causing lethal damage to a human being to prevent them from harming you is a rather inefficient way to go, especially if the lethal damage is done instantly, even by accident, and there’s no taking it back. As a defensive tool this is not optimal at all.
In the U.K. we are not allowed to carry a small folding knife to defend ourselves let alone a gun, we still have stabbings and gun crime. Gun crime in the U.K. is committed with the use of illegally held firearms so the law is not working, banning something is not always the right answer. In the U.K. the only deadly predator we have is man, different to the U.S.A where you have lion, wolf, bear etc. so you cannot realistically have a country wide ban. Maybe a start for the U.S.A. would be to take gun law out of the control of individual states and have one law for all.
Is the answer to prove the need to bare arms rather than the right to bare arms?
I doubt very much that the relevant UK law, when drafted, carried any expectation that it would eliminate the crime of murder or assault with a firearm or stabby-type weapon upon its passing; hope perhaps, but not expectation. Obviously the intention is to make the act a crime, and therefore punishable as a deterrent. I can’t imagine any modification to our existing laws that would do otherwise.
… and I think that’s the problem with trying to draw any comparison between UK and US gun crime and laws. It’s not just limited to wildlife is it? There’s an entire swathes of cultural and historical factors, as well as differing attitudes and expectations, that are often ignored when comparing the raw statistics, which can make any commentary from this side of the water seem naive, and unless one is very careful, smug and condescending (note that I’m not accusing you of that).
“Strange” in that context was meant to mean “unknown to me”. The second sentence was sort of a joke.
You can continue to be offended, or assign motives to me based on your preconceived notions however you like. Or you can take my questions as I have laid out - a simple way to receive the opinions of others.
Bone’s answer is good. My take is, to the extent that Scalia said that abortion or SSM are not basic human rights because they are not enumerated, he is wrong. Such an assertion is contrary to the Ninth Amendment. Abortion and SSM are not enumerated rights, and thus are not under the protection of the federal government, but the fact that they are not enumerated does not show that they don’t exist.
Nor does it show that they do. Since they are not enumerated, the decision of whether they exist or not is up to the states, or the people. (Not the federal government or the Supreme Court, of course).
Deciding what rights should be enumerated is up to the states, or the people. I don’t know that I have thought thru the basis on which I would decide, personally, what are the basic human rights.
But I am for limited government, and part of that principle means that the closer the locus of authority is to me, the better. Thus, in general, state government is better than the federal, local is better than the state, and personal autonomy is better than any of the above.
Yes, the deadly predator is man (“man” meaning the human race). Banning, confiscating, restricting, inanimate objects doesn’t change the psychotic, evil intentions of those persons who have decided to murder innocent people. Once the inanimate objects (firearms, knives, really sharp-edged paper) are gone, we’re still left with the psychotic monsters and violent criminals.
I realized I forgot to clarify here. I personally don’t think that SSM should be decided at the legislature - it’s not appropriate to vote on this civil right. Some things should be off the table when it comes to voting. Although in our constitutional republic, this is not really feasible since amending the constitution is always available.
Of course its the right answer. Your comparisons are wrong. Nobody expects banning weapons will turn the place into a violent crime free zone. You should instead wonder if there would be MORE stabbings and gun crime if the laws weren’t so strict. Given the low amount of crime most comparable countries that ban guns vs. ones that don’t, a few shootings and stabbing is a small price to pay for not having a LOT of shootings and stabbings.
To be truthful I think our draconian gun laws in the U.K. owe more to knee jerk reaction by governments wanting to be seen doing something rather than tackling the real cause of violence in our communities which is growing as population density increases
A lot of gun control people act shocked after a mass shooting that anyone would disagree with them. However, I can’t think of a worse time to make a law than right after a major tragedy. If a law is a good law than it shouldn’t need a crisis to pass that law. We have to look no further than the pack of laws passed after 9/11 including the patriot act.
If that were true than why are ccw holders the most law abiding segment of our population? In fact their rate of criminal conviction is about 1/100 that of police officers.
You’re really totally wrong on this. I’ve spent a decent amount of time around “gun culture”, or gun nuts as you’d put it, and I suspect there’s probably not a more law-abiding group out there. Which is not to say they’re paragons - they tend to be conservative and religious and have other faults - but in terms of being good, honorable, non-criminal citizens, they’re pretty much ahead of any other societal group.
Really, I’ve heard plenty of you opine about the motivations and dispositions of “gun nuts” and “gun culture” and you truly couldn’t be any more wrong. It’s not “gun nuts” that are out committing crime, gun and otherwise, and targeting them as a group when you’re unhappy about some sort of crime is just bizarre and wrong. “Gun nuts” perpetrate almost none of the violence in society.
