I’m not trying to be evasive…I have thought I’ve explained my position openly. Gun owners are, perhaps, in the minority (almost certainly they are, and the number of gun owners is, afaik dropping yearly since the 70’s in absolute percentage terms), but the concept of a personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution is still a majority view. Even if it’s not, however, it’s shared by a large percentage of the population, and thus can’t be simply waved away. Since, clearly, there are groups who want to take that right away (or, if it’s not a right, the actuality of gun ownership by private citizens), it needs to be protected.
I don’t know how to be more clear than this, Nemo. Sorry. To me, it seems both logical and clear.
I’m not talking about gun owners. I’m talking about people who support a right to own guns, regardless of whether or not they choose to exercise it. Do you feel they’re a majority or a minority? And, on the other side of the question, do you feel the people who oppose gun ownership are a majority or a minority?
That’s my opinion. I haven’t been able to find a poll that simply asks ‘do you believe we should have a 2nd Amendment in the Constitution’, or something along those lines (if you have, feel free to post it), but my impression is that a majority of Americans do indeed want to have a protected right to own firearms (the caveat being they don’t want it to be unlimited or beyond regulation…which I also agree with, and which we have today). For most Americans the issue is more where we set the bar on regulation and control than on whether we should have the right at all, at least that’s my impression…and my opinion as well.
So, to turn this around again, Nemo, what do YOU think? Answer the questions you’ve been asking me in this thread with your own take.
Personally, I support broad ownership of gun rights. Not quite as broad as the Second Amendment provides however. The model I’d personally favor would be the driving a car. The right to own a gun would be considered the default standard. But it would be subject to regulation and it would be possible to lose that right through a due process procedure.
My personal opinion is that most gun owners are responsible people and don’t generally cause the problems that arise from guns. I think it’s like the cliché where one percent of gun ownership creates ninety-nine percent of the problems. So I’d like to be able to target that one percent and leave the rest alone.
Now on the issue of percentages, my feeling, as I’ve written, are that this is an important issue (and one which I feel you’re not giving enough weight to). I feel that in general, democracy requires issues to be settled by the will of the people. People should able to able to vote on issues they feel are important (even if it’s through representation) and set policy by majority rule.
I don’t like having issues being removed from majority review. And that is what constitutional protection does. It says that this issue is not subject to the normal legislative process. For some issues, I feel that exception is a good idea. I don’t think the majority should be able to pass a law banning speech on certain topics or banning a religion or enacting slavery. These are issues that I think should be beyond the normal scope of voting. But I would not include gun ownership at this level.
One, there’s the reasons I outlined above where I personally feel gun ownership should be regulated more than it is. Two, I don’t think owning a particular item of property should be a constitutional issue. The ownership of guns should no more be a constitutional issue than the ownership of cars or houses or television sets is. Three, I think we should remember constitutional protection can be a two-edged sword. The same constitutional process which can protect the right to an item of property can also deny that right. The opposite side of the Second Amendment which guaranteed ownership of one item was the Eighteenth Amendment which prohibited ownership of another item. In both cases, the majority lost its normal legislative ability to set its own standards.
That’s something gun supporters need to remember - the precedent they set today by protecting their rights as a minority from may one day be turned around and used against them. Today, they can be happy that the Second Amendment prohibits local governments from banning guns even if the local majority wants it. But in the future, what if the Thirty-Second Amendment prohibits local governments from allowing guns even if the local majority wants it?
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Personally, I support broad ownership of gun rights. Not quite as broad as the Second Amendment provides however. The model I’d personally favor would be the driving a car. The right to own a gun would be considered the default standard. But it would be subject to regulation and it would be possible to lose that right through a due process procedure.
[/QUOTE]
As noted earlier, however, no one is trying to ban cars…or TVs or iPods. Without a protected right, what’s to ensure gun owners get to keep their guns? That’s the real question. I mean, WITH the 2nd there are places in the US where you can’t legally own whole broad categories of guns without a ton of special (and often expensive, and in some cases nearly impossible to get) dispensations. Why do you think this wouldn’t expand in the absence of the 2nd or something similar to it if those protections were removed. You say you support gun ownership, but you need to explain how this would practically work without Constitutional protections shielding that ownership from those bent on removing it. Pointing out that cars and TVs aren’t banned really is meaningless.
If it was actually 1% we’d have 100’s of thousands of gun deaths each year and millions of gun incidents. There are, quite literally 10’s of millions of gun owners in the US and 100’s of millions of guns. You can do the math yourself to see how 10’s of millions of gun owners translates into around 10,000 gun deaths a year, most of which are gang or crime related.
As to the first point, why do we need to remove Constitutional protection to have regulation? We have both NOW. If anti-gun types actually proposed sane regulations I don’t think there would be major push back…well, except for the fact that they have been so disingenuous in the past that they have pretty much poisoned the well wrt anything they do. And, clearly, they are up to the same old trick by trying to bring back idiotic legislature such as a new ‘assault weapons’ ban. Put it this way…would you trust anti-abortion folks who come bearing ‘reasonable’ legislature with an obvious hidden agenda? I wouldn’t.
As to your second point, again, no one is trying to ban cars, so it’s silly to attempt to create an analogy between them or make a comparison in this way (i.e. that they both don’t need equal protection). Clearly, people ARE trying to ban guns, however, so you need to explain how taking away Constitutional protection from guns is going to continue to ensure the average citizen has the ability to continue to own personal firearms.
As to the third, I don’t agree that it’s a two edged sword, unless some group (don’t know who they might be) would attempt to pass a prohibition on guns, once the Second was done away with by fiat in writing a new Constitution.
That’s something EVERYONE has to remember. I don’t see it as an issue, nor any sort of argument for why in this theoretical new Constitution we shouldn’t have a provision for personal gun ownership. If there is a sufficient sea change in the public’s outlook then literally anything could be changed. If you look at the attitudes of the population when the Constitution was drafted on, oh, say taxation, compared to today you can see there is a huge gulf between attitudes then and now. Or on slavery. And, when attitudes changed, changes were made to the laws and to the Constitution itself. I have no issue with that…it’s one of the strengths of our system, and one of the things I think our FFs got right. If attitudes change in my fellow citizens minds about personal gun ownership I’ll be sad, but if enough of them really are opposed then that’s the way it will be. Until that happens, however, I’d like the same curtsy.
There are models of cars illegal for street use, and a car can certainly be illegal if you didn’t have it up to code. Try selling a car with no seat belts or purposefully defective brakes. You’ll either get sued to oblivion or the courts will take up the issue and consider it a public nuisance.
Guns are the same way. We should not have a right to them because it just makes regulating them more of a hassle with people who can’t understand the concept of where a fist and nose meets. Guns should be treated the same as any other product and subject to the regulatory powers of the government. There needs to be, and should be, no right to them in the Constitution. And so what if people are trying to ban them? If its popular, it’ll pass, if not, it won’t. Guns aren’t and shouldn’t be a civil right, you’re not born with a gun the same way one is born black or gay. If people want to eliminate it, let them try
[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
There are models of cars illegal for street use, and a car can certainly be illegal if you didn’t have it up to code. Try selling a car with no seat belts or purposefully defective brakes. You’ll either get sued to oblivion or the courts will take up the issue and consider it a public nuisance.
[/QUOTE]
And we have very similar things with guns. For instance, automatic weapons are highly regulated and regular citizens can’t, for all practical purposes, buy new automatic weapons in the US…and even buying grandfathered automatic weapons requires a boat load of cash AND a ton of regulations and forms that need to be filled out and authorizations given.
BTW, you certainly can buy a car with no seat belts or faulty brakes…you simply can’t legally drive it on public roads. If you’ve ever been to a farm or in the back country you’ll find plenty of cars that don’t meet regulation standards. That’s neither here nor there wrt an argument pertaining to this thread, but just wanted to let you know.
Again, for about the 50th time in this thread alone, we DO have the same thing. We DO have the right to regulate them…clearly, since we do it all the time as a society.
I feel the same way about the 2nd. Feel free to get it repealed. There is a process for that. You aren’t born with free speech or the right to assembly or religion either, so that’s a pretty weak argument.
In what way would you regulate it more than it currently regulated? You do realize that you can lose your right to keep and bear arms though all manner of judicial procedures, don’t you?
And how would you do that?
And that is why gun rights advocates want the protection. If ever the majority of Americans supported a ban on abortion, I bet there are folks who think it should be subject to the democratic process as well.
How about a printing press?
That would be fine. If the country changes to the point where guns become the subject of an amendment prohibiting guns then so be it, until then, stop trying to circumvent the constitution.
I’m not born Christian either. Does gay rights hinge on gays being born that way? Can we gay rights back to the Democratic process if we discover otherwise?
To be fair, I can buy a machine gun and I can fire it it at a range, its just a bit more paperwork.
The answer is obvious: nothing would prevent it as a possibility. And you still haven’t explained why this possibility is unthinkable.
You say people aren’t trying to ban TV’s. But, hypothetically, if a movement started calling for a ban on TV’s, would you feel there should be a Constitutional amendment protecting TV ownership? Or would you concede that while you might personally not support the ban, you accept the principle that if the majority of people want to ban TV’s they have the right to do so in a democracy?
I hope that wasn’t directed at me personally. I have always said that while I personally disagree with the Second Amendment, it is part of the Constitution and I oppose any attempts to circumvent it. I feel it should be interpreted and enforced in its most obvious meaning - it says people have a right to own guns with all the ancillary rights that are associated with that. If I were a Supreme Court Justice, the NRA would love me.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
The answer is obvious: nothing would prevent it as a possibility. And you still haven’t explained why this possibility is unthinkable.
[/QUOTE]
Well, a Constitutional provision sure helps. Of COURSE the possibility is think-able…it’s very real, since clearly there are groups trying to do it. Which is why there needs to be a right, guaranteed by the Constitution to protect against that eventuality.
For one thing, it would probably fall under the First if you tried to ban TV’s in the same way folks have tried to ban guns. Sort of like the internet. If someone DID try and ban it, and if we also have tossed out the 1st in this theoretical new Constitution, then the answer is we probably would need such an Amendment to protect our right to communications and data, and if there wasn’t then we could very well have bans of those as well.
As for your second question, I’d pretty much have to go along with it, kicking and screaming, if someone actually attempted this fairly ridiculous hypothetical and tried to pry my TV from my cold, dead hands. If they got a majority of Americans to go along with it, then I would have to as well…which is exactly the same answer I gave you on gun ownership. It’s part of being in a democracy. I’d probably fight harder for the TV, but in the end if that’s the will of the people, then that’s the will of the people.
You still seem to be evading the issue I’m asking you to address. I don’t know if it’s conscious on your part or if it’s just a blind spot that you can’t see.
Maybe TV’s were a bad example. Pick a different item that has no relevance whatsoever under the current Constitution. Let’s say toasters. Can we agree that there is no provision in the Constitution that addresses toasters?
Now suppose some movement started calling for a ban of toasters. I’m going to assume that you would think this is a stupid idea. But you can see the anti-toaster movement is growing and you can foresee they might reach a point where they’re able to begin passing anti-toaster laws in some parts of the country.
Would your response be that we need to work on getting a Right to Toaster Amendment passed so that all Americans are guaranteed the right to own a toaster? Or would you that if the majority of the people in a community vote to ban toasters that’s their right?
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Maybe TV’s were a bad example. Pick a different item that has no relevance whatsoever under the current Constitution. Let’s say toasters. Can we agree that there is no provision in the Constitution that addresses toasters?
[/QUOTE]
Sure, no provision for toasters. Am I supposed to also either pre-suppose that toasters have the same historical and cultural weight that guns do, to the American people, or simply that a toaster is a toaster? I’m not trying to be evasive here, I’m trying to answer you…hell, I thought I WAS answering you. I’m expending more effort on this thread than I have in a long time…and more than I probably have the attention span for as well.
And this is a small minority of dedicated, one could say ruthless folks who want this ban, while the majority of Americans really want toasters, though toasters that are regulated and meet the standards of, say, the UL? Ok, I’m with you.
As toasters are obviously part of US culture and history, and as a large percentage of Americans want a right to have a toaster, and as clearly a small group, perhaps with entrenched and partisan help from elements of the government want to deny those Americans their right to choose whether they have a toaster or not, I’d have to go with yes…silly as it would be, we would need a guaranteed right to own and keep a toaster. If enough people in the US wanted to ensure they had a guaranteed right to that toaster, then such a provision would go in…and if not, then not. Obviously, if a large majority of Americans didn’t want toasters, and were actually in favor of a ban, then such a provision would have no chance of being added…or, if it was added, then like the 18th it would eventually be repealed, and the toaster banners would win the day. No toast for us…and, more importantly, no more toasted bagels for me. With a nice bit of cream cheese…ok, a LOT of cream cheese, slathered on liberally. I’d be very sad…like this ----->
Well, I don’t want to parody your responses but I feel I’m getting something like this:
“Why should we have a Second Amendment?”
“Because if we didn’t have a Constitutional right to own guns then our right to own guns might be taken away.”
“Okay, but that’s begging the question. Why do we need a right to own guns in the first place?”
“Because the majority think we should have that right.”
“So the basis of a right is the majority want it?”
“Yes.”
“So if the majority wanted to ban firearms that would be right?”
“No.”
“So a majority is right if it wants to protect guns but a majority is wrong if it wants to ban guns?”
“Yes.”
“So it’s not really what the majority wants. It’s about protecting guns.”
“A substantial minority wants to protect guns even if a majority wanted to ban them.”
“So the majority shouldn’t be allowed to dictate to a substantial minority? A substantial minority should be allowed to do what they want?”
“Yes.”
“So if a substantial minority wants to ban guns, the majority shouldn’t be allowed to tell them no?”
“No, the majority wants guns to be allowed so they should be allowed. A substantial minority that wants to ban guns should be stopped.”
It seems to me that you’re presenting arguments in support of the pro-gun position but every time I ask if the same argument could be turned around and used to support the anti-gun position, you say it couldn’t. You seem to be saying these arguments are valid but only as long as they’re used in support of your position.
I think the disconnect is that XT doesn’t think of guns like toasters and thinks that even a minority that wants guns should have their right to own guns protected from the majority. What he isn’t clear about is why this right needs to be protected for a minority.
For my part I will say that I think that a constitutional right to keep and bear arms is no longer constitutionally necessary when all the police departments feel comfortable enough to send their cops out on patrol with billy clubs and pepper spray.
Well, personally I think the disconnect is either I’m not being clear or Nemo isn’t hearing me.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
I think the disconnect is that XT doesn’t think of guns like toasters and thinks that even a minority that wants guns should have their right to own guns protected from the majority. What he isn’t clear about is why this right needs to be protected for a minority.
[/QUOTE]
The right needs to be protected for the same reason all of our rights have been set out to be protected…because they are a fundamental part of the makeup of the country, there are a large percentage of Americans that want them to be protected (thus, the political impetus is there), and clearly they are under threat, seeing as there are definitely people who want to take them away.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
“Okay, but that’s begging the question. Why do we need a right to own guns in the first place?”
[/QUOTE]
Why do we need a right to free speech, or freedom of religion? I HAVE answered this, several times…we need it because there is a large percentage of (voting) citizens who want it and expect it. I don’t know how to say it simpler than that.
No. The basis of the right is that there is a large percentage of Americans (whether a large percentage equals an outright majority or a large minority) who expect it and want it to be a protected right. Again, I’ve answered this several times, and I don’t know how to be clearer.
lol…yes, you would, since it currently IS a protected right. You’d need to get a majority OF ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM THE STATES TO OVERTURN THE CURRENT AMENDMENT. That would happen when/if there was a sea change in the American population sufficient to allow said politicians to overturn it…just like with the 18th Amendment. In this thread, you would basically have to contend with the fact that a large percentage of Americans, today, have an expectation and desire to have a personal right to keep and bear arms be protected under a new Constitution, and they would be very unhappy if you didn’t do it (by basically fiat, which is what seems to be the only position anyone else in this thread is taking).
Good grief…I think every one of your strawman answers are wrong. No, it’s NOT wrong if a majority want to ban all guns. If a sufficient percentage of American voters vote for politicians who are opposed to gun control/repealing the 2nd Amendment, then that’s what will happen…again, just like with the 18th. That won’t be wrong…it is the freaking process! Again, I’ve answered this several times, and I don’t know how to be clearer.
No. You are batting…well, zero. It’s about the expectations of a large percentage of American voters, and more importantly, the representatives of those voting citizens. Let me try saying it this way…there are sufficient voter inertia to make either repealing the 2nd or attempting this sort of ‘let’s rewrite the Constitution and take the 2nd out by fiat!’ type trick pretty much impossible AT THIS TIME. Times change, however, and it’s clear that Americans, as a percentage of the total are less and less likely to have guns on a per household basis. IIRC, it was over 50% of households in the 70’s…and it’s more like 35-40% now and dropping every year. Now, that’s folks who actually have a gun, not folks who favor a protected right, which is higher as a percentage. Still, as the number of folks who actually have guns in their homes drops, attitudes are invariably going to shift…it’s just a matter of time before they shift enough to make either getting rid of the 2nd or this sort of theoretical fantasy at least a possibility.
No…all you need is a sufficient change in the make up of the elected officials (reflecting a change in the voter attitudes on this subject) to allow the Amendment to be repealed. Or, in this fantasy exercise, sufficient to not have the whole thing come apart in massive voter displeasure if you tried to do all of this by re-writing the Constitution.
Not even sure what you are asking here, to be honest. Obviously, a substantial majority CAN dictate to a ‘substantial’ minority, though you’d have to define what ‘substantial’ means in both cases, since it’s hard to imagine having a substantial majority AND a substantial minority. There are, of course, checks and balances on that…no tyranny of the majority and all…but, yeah, in a democracy a majority, as reflected in the elected representatives, definitely gets their way.
By the same token, a small but vocal minority (such as, say, the anti-gun folks who want an outright ban and/or a repeal of the 2nd to clear the road for an outright ban…I’m guess we are talking less than 20% of voting Americans fall into this category, probably FAR less) obviously CAN influence things to the point where even a protected right can be circumvented or curtailed to one extent or another…they pretty much DID do this for several decades, which is why a lot of pro-gun types are so angry and defensive these days.
If the ‘substantial minority’ equals sufficient elected representatives to repeal the Amendment then they can do what they want. Look, again, at the 18th. It’s fairly clear that a ‘substantial minority’ managed to get it implemented despite the pretty obvious fact that the majority of Americans didn’t really want prohibition. Yet they were small, vocal and organized, while the majority weren’t so…we got the 18th Amendment and prohibition.
Yes. That’s not my opinion, that’s pretty obviously reality, though as I noted in the question above this you CAN push through something from a minority that the majority is against (or for) if you are sufficiently organized and vocal about it…it just might not work out so well in the long term.
And it seems to me you just aren’t hearing what I’m saying. Of COURSE they can be turned around…we have freaking historical evidence that they can be. Of COURSE they aren’t only valid to support my position…that’s not the actual system we have. ANYTHING…literally ANYTHING…in the Constitution can be changed with sufficient voter support as reflected in the elected representatives. What I’m trying to convey here is that there isn’t that support for an anti-gun position such that you could muster sufficient voter/representative impetus to repeal the 2nd today…OR, to try this fantasy trick of waving it away by re-writing the Constitution. It might not always be the case, but it is the case TODAY…you can’t do it, and if you tried, by basically fiat as seems clear most in this thread on that side of the debate are arguing, there would be a huge backlash. At a minimum, you’d have something like 30-40% of the population (which, by my book is ‘substantial minority’) extremely pissed off and unhappy…and that’s only if it’s current gun owners who would be pissed off, which I seriously doubt (as I noted, I don’t own a gun and I’d be pretty unhappy if someone tried to do this by fiat).
I’m sure your reason in mentioning that is to signal your support for laws that outlaw the use of such guns, not just as semantic wordplay of what’s legal and what’s not. I look forward to your next thread outlining that rationality
I’m sorry, I guess you were under the impression that nobody here has used the 2nd Amendment as a basis for eliminating a regulation on guns. Let me inform you then that there exists people who claim that that 2nd Amendment lets them have guns anywhere they want, in schools, in public, in churches, and many of those same people think that any small restriction on gun ownership is an affront to the 2nd Amendment and is illegal! Ya, I know, crazy, amirite?
Without the 2nd Amendment, nothing about gun ownership would change at all. This country will still want and have the ability to own guns. We simply wouldn’t be subjected to the terribly idiotic tactic that I described above
Considering that we have 90% support on background checks and its still not for sure we’ll get it through Congress without it being blocked or watered down, I’d say that the 2nd Amendment is more of a detriment to what the public wants instead of protecting it
Okay, I think I see what I was missing. I thought what you were concerned about was the possibility that if there was no Second Amendment the anti-gun minority might convince the majority to ban all guns. But what you seem to be worried about is that if there was no Second Amendment the anti-gun minority might somehow manage to ban all guns even without having the support of the majority. Is this correct?
No. You are batting…well, zero. It’s about the expectations of a large percentage of American voters, and more importantly, the representatives of those voting citizens. Let me try saying it this way…there are sufficient voter inertia to make either repealing the 2nd or attempting this sort of ‘let’s rewrite the Constitution and take the 2nd out by fiat!’ type trick pretty much impossible AT THIS TIME. Times change, however, and it’s clear that Americans, as a percentage of the total are less and less likely to have guns on a per household basis. IIRC, it was over 50% of households in the 70’s…and it’s more like 35-40% now and dropping every year. Now, that’s folks who actually have a gun, not folks who favor a protected right, which is higher as a percentage. Still, as the number of folks who actually have guns in their homes drops, attitudes are invariably going to shift…it’s just a matter of time before they shift enough to make either getting rid of the 2nd or this sort of theoretical fantasy at least a possibility.