Meaning?
No, criminal don’t get to keep their guns. They’ve broken the law, they get arrested, and their guns get taken away. Because, as you pointed out, law enforcement generally shows up after a crime is committed.
No, but it’s a pretty good argument against armed criminals.
The Second Amendment says everyone can own a gun. I want to repeal that and have a law that says criminals can’t own guns. I have no problem with non-criminals owning guns.
I guess I should have explained that I don’t want to ban all guns. Oh wait, there’s that part where I wrote “I’m not saying I’d ban all guns.”
Criminals “can’t own guns”!? Are you reading what you are writing!?
The 2nd Amendment says no such thing, and in fact there are laws that state that felons, mentally ill, and people convicted of any sort of domestic violence (among others) can not own or possess a weapon. Does the 19th Amendment mean that no woman can have her right to vote taken away? How about the 15th for minorities? Not one of those abridgements have ever been found unconstitutional.
You’d do better if you didn’t make stuff up.
Actually both sides are wrong on this one, there is no correlation between crime and and the number of guns.
Czarcasm please provide any cite if you claim otherwise.
You are aware, are you not, that it is already illegal for convicted felons and those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to own or possess firearms? No?
Briefly, then, criminals can’t own guns.
Let’s take ten cases where a victim was killed by a robber just because he felt like it. Nothing to do with resisting or not handing over the cash. Just cold blooded killers. It does happen. Let’s also add that none of the victims was armed. Which is usually the case. Hypothetically, if some of the victims had been armed then they would have been “less likely” to have been killed than the outcome of them actually having been killed.
Technically, the second amendment has no specification for type of weaponry it protects - ‘arms’ is a pretty all-encompassing term that if it were taken literally would include all weapons of any kind, making it perfectly legal (by the literal text of the constitution, at least) for any given citizen to own anything up to and including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Clearly this would be a bad idea, but it is unlikely any weapons much more powerful than a cannon or a black powder bomb were ever imagined at the time of writing.
I have always thought that it would have been better if the constitution had specified something more specific, along the lines of ‘whatever weaponry the most common combat soldier’ carries. …that’s actually really poorly worded, so it would need a lot of revision, but the idea being to exclude massive weapons, yet ensure that citizens’ right to carry the same kit as the common infantryman is protected. As we have seen in recent conflicts, unless the technologically superior force is willing to engage in a policy of destroying both non-combatant population and infrastructure in order to achieve its goals, infantry weapons are all that are needed in order to produce non-trivial resistance.
Several major court cases (most significant of which is probably Warren V. District of Columbia, as noted above, but there are a few others with similar findings in somewhat different situations, some of which have gone all the way to the Supreme Court) have ruled that the government and police do not have a duty to protect citizens from harm by other private actors. Police therefore are not a ‘defense’, they are a means of punishment after the event.
Even considering only the ‘defense against crime’ side, I believe a person’s right to defend themselves, rather than having to rely upon others to do it, is vitally important, especially given the fact that our government has specifically stated that it does not have a duty to defend us. If our government has no duty to defend us, and we are stripped of our most effective means to defend ourselves, there will be times when we have little recourse. My opinion is that I am willing to risk a few additional criminals obtaining weapons (especially since some criminals will have them no matter what) if it also means I will have them available to defend myself when necessary.
While this is the way the courts have decided, a literal reading of the 2nd Amendment prohibits any kind of violation or hindrance (Infringe, as written in the 1785 ‘A Dictionary of the English Language’, which would likely be closest to the definition they were working from at the time, means ‘to violate ; to break laws or contracts’ and ‘to destroy ; to hinder’) to the right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, ‘bear’, despite having 37 definitions and therefore being a somewhat murky word, has most of the applicable definitions to mean ‘carry’. Therefore the 2nd amendment when taken literally, protects our right to physically carry weapons, not merely own them in storage.
Now, as I said, I would find it crazy to take the amendment literally given advances since the constitutional convention, and I do believe it should be altered and clarified, but I too have little confidence in any procedure that would actually be implemented TO clarify it, and suspect we would end up with something far worse. Even as it has been interpreted by the courts so far, the 2nd Amendment is still far better than anything I could imagine being drawn up today, so I would not support amending it at this time, although I do wish it had originally been written in a different manner, to ensure that a citizen is able to carry the same weapons as the common military infantryman.
Very carefully written laws governing the use (that is, firing/discharge) of weapons, on the other hand, are vital to minimize potential misuse of the arms we have a right to keep. I would even support a (very well written) allowance in the constitution for restricting the right to bear arms only to those with a certain level of training - but again, I do not trust current procedures and politicians to write such an amendment in a manner I would be satisfied with. Hell, I doubt I would trust myself to write it, as it would be a very complex bit of wording and would clearly have to be written in such a way as to cover future development of weaponry (for instance, with the increasing use of various types of robotics and drones, the ‘common infantryman’ may well cease to exist by the end of my lifetime, and if not by then, most likely within 150 years).
Anecdotes and hypotheticals are not cites.
Incorrect, in the period the text written arms were weapons that were carried.
So you are saying this doesn’t even make logical sense to you? And I wasn’t even the one who initiated the “less likely” argument.
Do you really dispute that at least ten people have ever been killed in cold blood by an armed assailant?
Czarcasm has no data to back up his assertions either, the fact that weapons will change the balance of power in a conflict has nothing to do with if they actually cause people to be less or more likely to be violent to others.
The OP speaks of the the 2nd which directly covers the ownership.
I was asking for a cite that shows that the increased ownership or decreased ownership of firearms by the general population has a direct effect on the amount of violent crime.
Lott tried to do so but was discredited, to my knowledge there is no study that shows any correlation between the two at this point in time.
Strawman, try again.
You don’t know what strawman means.
You are misstating my position and using that non-claim to argue, it is not a valid debate method.
[QUOTE=jimpatro]
Do you really dispute that at least ten people have ever been killed in cold blood by an armed assailant?
[/QUOTE]
Strawman
My question was more rhetorical. Asking for a cite shows that you do dispute the fact of cold-blooded murder during robbery.
I was addressing ten specific instances where a victim being armed might have had an effect on the continuation of their life. Not on whether more guns decreases crime. Wearing seatbelts make you “less likely” to be injured in a car crash. And there ARE ten cases where people died because they weren’t wearing them.
I dispute the claim that the number of firearms owned by the public has any real effect on the amount of violent crime.
A hypothetical you presented does nothing to prove that point, I could claim that a pink pony would have prevented all the deaths.
Are you anti-pink pony?
I am unaware of any mass murders that have taken place in the presence of a pink pony.
Never made that claim. You’re grasping at strawmen now.