I know some people who were in Belfast in the 70s who’d question that.
I understand your motives here, but I suggest that what you’re proposing as far as a licensing scheme is better handled through the legislature.
When exercise of a right is conditional on the approval of the state, it is easily infringed.
With a simple “Right to bear arms” amendment, such a licensing law would be evaluated as whether it constituted infringement of the right or not, and was thus unconstitutional or not. When the parameters of the licensing scheme are part of the constitution, it seems to me that you’d have a much harder time finding a remedy if some administration decided that the gun-safety training course would cost $20,000, or take 12 4-hour sessions; or that the mental health screening would be graded in such a way as to deny anyone without political connections. This is how New York’s “may-issue” concealed carry law is reported to work, for instance:
While they were at it they might want to make it clearer as to whether any state reserved the right to leave the Union. It would have saved a lot of argument later on.
Easily. Human cultures have been doing that since prehistoric times.
I just don’t see how the writers of the Constitution could have had a policy on our modern issue of privacy. The concept was too different from what we mean by it today. In the eighteenth century the outside world couldn’t reach into an individual’s life. If you were off by yourself, you were pretty much left alone by default - the means of intruding on your privacy barely existed. Forget things like cameras and phones and computers - they didn’t even have mail back then. Nor were there any government agencies that could look through your public records. Like the modern post office, the modern police department didn’t exist in the eighteenth century.
On the other hand, people generally weren’t alone. If social privacy was the norm then personal privacy was extremely rare. Many families lived together in a one room house. Entire streets would share a common outhouse. People traveling would buy a seat in a coach and would eat at a common table in some inn. Most families that were at all prosperous had live-in servants (or slaves). There were always people around you. An eighteenth century person would probably be amazed at how much time a twenty-first century person spends alone.
So if you went back to James Madison and asked him his opinions on the right to privacy, he wouldn’t have understood what you were asking about. He’d think wanting privacy was something like a fifteen-year-old wanting her own bedroom so she didn’t have to share it with her younger sister and how is that a legal issue?
I would not support a 2nd Amendment in a new Constitution. I don’t think people should be armed. I’ll take my chances with the government
And with other people.
Cops, soldiers, secret service? Do they get to bear arms and if so, why?
Laws when enforced can prevent. In this case they can prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Because there are so many guns out there this will have limited impact, and people who are determined to use a gun illegally aren’t going to be stopped by the law. But if you are going to write a new constitution you can make provisions for a right to bear arms yet still allow reasonable laws to prevent gun crimes.
I’m not sure what your position is in this debate, but I think now the biggest problem is the ‘infringe’ part of the 2nd amendment. It is being interpreted by many to mean that no laws may established regarding guns, even reasonable ones.
I’m sure that if only we didn’t have a 2nd Amendment that criminals wouldn’t ever use guns, so why would you need to be afraid of other people?? 
[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
I would not support a 2nd Amendment in a new Constitution. I don’t think people should be armed. I’ll take my chances with the government
[/QUOTE]
And that’s fine, for you (the irony being that today, you can choose simply not to have a gun if you don’t want one, yet you want to take that choice away because, well, you don’t like them or think people should have them). Of course, similar arguments could be made against all of the Amendments in the Constitution. We don’t need the 1st either if you just trust the government will handle everything and you aren’t worried about stuff like that freedom of religion stuff (perhaps you are an atheist and think religion is silly anyway, for instance), or about that freedom of speech stuff or assembly or petition and redress. That’s the thing…because YOU don’t want something does that really mean it’s something that can or should be dismissed so blithely? And if it can be, why not dismiss all of them? I mean, as I said, someone else who doesn’t care about stuff in the other Amendments or other protected, Constitutional rights could as easily dismiss them all (or selectively such as you are doing) in similar ways, right?
Actually every damn part of our constitution can be dismissed if a vote so deems it. Nothing is graven in stone from on high.
No argument here. And guess what? Every Amendment can be revised or removed. We have a process for that.
How will any of these ‘reasonable’ laws PREVENT? You say ‘enforcement’ - I agree, but enforcment comes AFTER the law is broken, not prior - if you mean ‘enforcement of background checks’, then I agree to some point - but the Sandy Hook and the Batman and many of the other ‘tragedies’ were all done with legally obtained firearms - and for those that start out intending to break the law (like the guy that shot the fireman who was a felon) will find a way around them.
Unless of course, your suggesting that the police start a thougth crime unit…
How do you enforce these laws prior to the event taking place while not infringing upon law abiding citizens privacy/rights?
Cameras in homes monitored by ‘security facilities’ to ensure the lawfully obtained firearms are in a ‘safe place’?
Yearly/Monthly/daily checks by ‘law enforcement’ that said item is secured, that a need still exists?
Simply put - all the legislation in the world will not prevent - you may reduce the number of firearms held and maintained by law abiding citizens - this may have some reduction in ‘familial’ crimes and ‘heat of the moment’ stuff - but it will do little to prevent the ‘mass tragedies’ engineered by some - and its those that always spur these debates.
If the laws now enacted in Connecticut had been there several years ago then Sandy Hook would have been prevented. The guns were legally obtained because there were few laws concerning the purchase of guns at the time. The lack of laws now, and the lack of enforcement for the few laws there are is not a reason that more laws and enforcement would be ineffective.
Your first sentence is not fact - you may think it would have been prevented, but only based upon the specific weapon(s) used - which are only now ‘restricted’ after the fact - had they been restricted prior, there is just as good a chance that the mother and son would have bought other ‘legal’ firearms (legally) over the years that would have then been used …
There is no background check that would have prevented or ‘seen’ that coming.
There is no lack of laws - I do agree that there is lack of enforcement or ‘bite’ to some of the existing laws and that we can do more to make the penalties for illegally obtained firearms (and those that deal them) such that the risk of getting caught with one (or selling one) is no longer worth the money made.
If you got the impression that I am against ‘reasonable’ regulations/background requirements and even ‘registration’ of legally obtained firearms, you would be mistaken - I am also fully behind bringing those that use said weapons in crime to swift justice - but all of those things must be balanced such that the focus is on the criminal side of the coin, and not just in making ‘new criminals’ out of otherwise law abiding citizens.
And I’ll say it again - Laws, Regulations and Enforcment is always after the fact - you cannot craft a law that will ‘prevent’ these things - thats the fallacy of most of these debates and attempts.
If you think you can craft a law/regulation or ammendment, focused soley on firearms, that can prevent ‘Sandy Hook’ - lets hear it.
Self-defense is good, but singling out guns is stupid. Putting it into the Constitution just justifies a gun culture, since gun owners see the actual ownership of the gun as a right they have to constantly defend. That is energy better focused on the right to defend oneself (and how limited that right is.)
Having guns specifically mentioned in the Constitution is what led to the NRA and the complete inability of our government to enact reasonable restrictions to keep criminals from getting guns. People are so frightened of losing their guns that they are okay with letting them be sold illegally or to let people who obviously don’t need guns have them.
I am mentally ill. There is no way I will ever own a gun except as an heirloom (without any bullets). I like it that way.
I don’t understand your arguments. Laws are all about preventing things from happening. They may not prevent every single occurrence, but the point of the law is to provide punishment as a deterrent. Yes, the actual shooter probably wouldn’t have been deterred. But I do think that laws about letting the mentally ill adult have access to guns might have prevented his parents from allowing him access, and might have thus prevented this shooting. If they could go to jail just for letting the guy have the guns, then they might think twice before letting him have them.
Yes, they might not. But you seem to be creating a false dichotomy. Either everything is prevented or nothing is. In reality, some things may be prevented and not others.
Would you also say that forest fires can’t be prevented because lightning might striker? Or, to be more analogous, because there will always be people who choose to start fires?
Lanza murdered his mom and stole her guns. I am quite sure that those actions were illegal last year and for several years prior. In addition, CT already had significant restrictions upon “assault weapons” prior to Newton.
Lanza attempted to buy his own guns and was turned down during the background check. Since the law was preventing him from acquiring weapons for his planned crime, he enacted a plan B: kill mom and take her stuff.
Lay people may interpret it that way, but the Supreme Court never has, going back to United States v. Miller in 1939.
And we certainly have laws regarding guns. Just at the federal level:
It doesn’t single out or, indeed, mention guns. “Arms” is not synonymous with “firearms”. From D.C. v. Heller
Yes, because they are the ones that should protect us.
Its not ironic, its your misinterpretation of what irony means. Its always been about safety. For the same reason YOU probably don’t think your neighbors should have a Kill Button that, if they push it, can kill you, I don’t want people to have guns.
Well obviously its different with that example, I don’t trust the government on religious issues. You think if I trust the government on some things I have to trust them on others. What a delightfully silly argument! :rolleyes:
I thought this topic was discussing what we want? Ok, fine, I give up, since I don’t think much of the 2nd Amendment, I guess I can’t post in this thread since its all about what I want :rolleyes: