The only thing we disagree on here is what the test is. If there is a conviction for a violent crime, then no way do I think they deserve a gun. I also think these people should be locked up for 30 years if they are violent criminals.
I am sure you can think of how a “pre-qualifying” attitude test would be abused. We have a government in place right now that is very anti-gun. With a subjective test dependent on your attitude, the government would prevent the very people who are supposed to have guns from having them.
I imagine it very much like CCW permits in non “shall-issue” states. They can issue them if they want, but in reality only do if you are politically connected.
I am a little surprised that you don’t think the 2nd gives us the individual right to own firearms. The National Gaurd is all reality a federal militia. All appearences to the contrary, one quick signiture and they are federal troops. I think there was even a Supreme Court case about this where Maine (mass?) didn’t want it’s soldiers called up during the Gulf War.
If the Second is meant as a counter balance to the Federal government, it needs to arm individuals. The militia is really nothing more than the raw material for an army to defend our free state.
Let me say first (I probably mentioned this before), I am not a constitutional expert. I am not even originally from the US although I have lived here for many years now.
However, it seems to me that the following is true:
There is little chance of the US gov’t actually becoming truly tyrannical (Lib, bugger off :)). Gov’t powers ebbs and flows with the ideals of the people, change the minds of the people and the gov’t will follow. Unfortunately, for small gov’t supporters this ideal is not popular for a number of reasons. Change that and things will change.
Therefore, IMO, I see no reason to arm individuals as a means to prevent a tyrannical gov’t. Also, it is highly unlikely that the bulk of the US military would obey the orders to fight against the US people anyway.
At the time, the people were the militia. I suspect that the founding fathers thought that most every able bodied man would be part of a national guard or state guard. At the time this was likely primarily true. It isn’t today.
Therefore, as a means of protection from external threats those people who join the national guard (i.e. are responsible, civic-minded and tranined) should be allowed to own guns.
The real (or best) reason, IMO, to own a gun is self defense. This isn’t mentioned or implied in the 2nd amendment; however, I still think it should be law.
I’m about to do an Ex-Tank on you
Just as there is fairly overwhelming evidence that firearms are beneficial to law abiding citizens, there is also overwhelming evidence that the Bill of Rights enshrines an individual right.
If you only take the time to check it out, you will find the truth is on the side of the individual here.
Otherwise, I think we are pretty close in our opinions of firearms.
Glitch, several legal scholars have done papers concerning the Second Amendment, including one that examined the text from a purley grammatical point-of-view.
The vast majority (90%+) find that:
1)The FF were leary of standing Armies.
2)The FF considered the armed private citizen, constituting The Militia, the best check against heavy-handed Federal Gov’t.
The Militia, comprised of all able-bodied men, should be allowed to own ordinary military arms (this did not include what the FF consistently refer to as “Ordinance of War”: artillery, mortars and such)
4a) Subsequent legislation (the Militia Act) considers the militia to be comprised of two parts: the “Organized” and the “Unorganized”.
4b) The National Guard is the “Organized”; anyone else registered with the Selective Service is the “Unorganized”.
The Supreme Court has had little chance to rule on the 2nd; mostly because prior to 1934 (The NFA), nobody in America considered the 2nd to mean anything other than what it says.
Several gun-control laws have finally made their way to the Supreme Court, and several more are coming.
6a) United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). This was the first case in which the Supreme Court had the opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment. The Court recognized that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a right which existed prior to the Constitution when it stated that such a right “is not a right granted by the Constitution…[n]either is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”
6b) Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). Although the Supreme Court affirmed the holding in Cruikshank that the Second Amendment, standing alone, applied only to action by the federal government, it nonetheless found the states without power to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, holding that “the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.”
Presser, moreover, plainly suggested that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and thus that a state cannot forbid individuals to keep and bear arms.
6c) U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute’s constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense” and that “when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia.
Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.
6d) United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). This case involved the meaning of the term “the people” in the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously held that the term “the people” in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that “the people” means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States.
(This is the case Freedom is refering to in his “the people” refernce)
The most hopeful case coming up is the U.S. v. Emerson case, coming before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Federal Judge S. Cummings held that the indictment against Dr. Emerson had no merit, as the indictment, charging felony possession of a firearm under The Brady Act (Amended) was unconstitutional, as it violated Dr. Emerson’s 2nd Amen. rights.
Of course, the U.S. Attorney appealed (The Fed hates to lose nowadays!), and the case is expected to be heard sometime this spring.
BTW…
I hope you didn’t take my comment the wrong way
I have a question.
Where can I find info to support this. The antis love to throw out the “Nuclear Weapons in every home arguement,” I would love something specific to answer this with.
I would have responded sooner, but I was too busy washing hacker blood out of my clothes after disposing their bodies (dammit, I’m runnin’ outta places to dump the stiffs!).
Freedom: Well, for a completely unbiased search, your basic encyclopedia will tell you some info about the various delegates at the [Constitutional] convention, and then a quick search for some of those names in a library (or on the internet) will tell you what books they published, and reference like subjects. This is the long way, but the honest way.
Other than that, check out these links:
(BTW: I have verified most of the info at these sites, to the best of my ability.)
In other words a scholastic peer-review process, right?
The thing is, the NRA will not do such a thing; it is not in the nature of their organization. For such a “paper” or “study”, you’ll have to go to the “Second Amendment Foundation” website (linked above).
The NRA is primarily oriented towards promoting the shooting sports; secondly, advocating and protecting gun owner’s rights; finally, firearms instruction (safety, hunting and marksmanship), and some ballistics research.
The Second Amendment Foundation (being a not-for-profit organization, is tax-exempt; they don’t “lobby” like the NRA does) is a research and legal advocacy organization that collects and performs legal and statistical research, and provides legal advice to gun owners, dealers and manufacturers; and it’s founders, attorneys Alan Gottlieb and Joseph Tartaro are published and reviewed.
Also, Jab1 (I’m not picking no you, really):
Probably because the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;”
Unalienable Rights, Bill of Rights.
They’re yours, from the moment the doctor smacked your little behind and you drew your first breath. Whether you believe in a God or Gods, or not at all. They can’t be sold, surrendered or otherwise taken from you. Inalienable.
From a Constructionist point-of-view, the Bill of Rights IS the Ten Commandments for our age (the religious right will blast me for idolatry; I don’t care. I shoot straighter than most of 'em, 'cause they trust their aim to God, I trust mine to Banner Optics :p).
So we heed the wise words of Patrick Henry:
The ACLU is the “barking dog” for every civil liberty enumerated in the Bill of Rights except the Second.
They have yet to respond to my repeated inquiry: “Why Not?”
In the mean time, I’ll keep paying my dues and making my contributions to the NRA and The Second Amendment Foundation.
I would have responded sooner, but I was too busy washing hacker blood out of my clothes after disposing their bodies (dammit, I’m runnin’ outta places to dump the stiffs!).
Freedom: Well, for a completely unbiased search, your basic encyclopedia will tell you some info about the various delegates at the [Constitutional] convention, and then a quick search for some of those names in a library (or on the internet) will tell you what books they published, and reference like subjects. This is the long way, but the honest way.
Other than that, check out these links:
(BTW: I have verified most of the info at these sites, to the best of my ability.)
In other words a scholastic peer-review process, right?
The thing is, the NRA does not do such things; it is not in the nature of their organization. For such a “paper” or “study”, you’ll have to go to the “Second Amendment Foundation” website (linked above).
The NRA is primarily oriented towards promoting the shooting sports; secondly, advocating and protecting gun owner’s rights; finally, firearms instruction (safety, hunting and marksmanship), and some ballistics research.
The Second Amendment Foundation (being a not-for-profit organization, is tax-exempt; they don’t “lobby” like the NRA does) is a research and legal advocacy organization that collects and performs legal and statistical research, and provides legal advice to gun owners, dealers and manufacturers; and it’s founders, attorneys Alan Gottlieb and Joseph Tartaro are published and reviewed.
Also, Jab1 (I’m not picking no you, really):
Probably because the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;”
Unalienable Rights, Bill of Rights.
They’re yours, from the moment the doctor smacked your little behind and you drew your first breath. Whether you believe in a God or Gods, or not at all. They can’t be sold, surrendered or otherwise taken from you. Inalienable.
From a Constructionist point-of-view, the Bill of Rights IS the Ten Commandments for our age (the religious right will blast me for idolatry; I don’t care. I shoot straighter than most of 'em, 'cause they trust their aim to God, and I trust mine to Banner Optics :p).
So we heed the wise words of Patrick Henry:
The ACLU is the “barking dog” for every civil liberty enumerated in the Bill of Rights except the Second.
They have yet to respond to my repeated inquiry: “Why Not?”
In the mean time, I’ll keep paying my dues and making my contributions to the NRA and The Second Amendment Foundation.
You guys want to change your opinions now that we’ve had another school shooting, an elementary school shooting? If that kid had not had a gun, he would NOT have been able to kill that little girl. He probably would’ve used his fists or a rock or a pencil or something, and even a 6-year-old girl could defend herself from that. And a teacher certainly could’ve stopped him.
Kayla Rolland is yet another sacrifice on the altar of the 2nd Amendment. I hope you bastards are happy.
Just tell me how YOU would’ve prevented that shooting? Armed security guards at the school? Arm the teachers? If it had been YOUR kid who took a gun to school (and don’t you dare tell me it can’t happen), how would YOU feel if an armed guard or teacher found it necessary to shoot your little darling?
I have rarely been so goddamned angry in all my life.
There’s a new thread on this subject in MPSIMS, of all places: www.boards.straightdope/ubb/Forum4/HTML/005471.htmlRTFirefly provides a link to a Washington Post editorial that reports on an FBI study that says
That is completely contrary to an assertion made earlier on this thread by Freedom. Watch him try to refute it. He’ll never admit he’s wrong here.
Frankly, I think someone who feels insecure without a gun is a coward. If you say, “A gun doesn’t make me feel secure. I can feel secure without one,” then you should have no problem getting rid of your guns.
Without knowing the specifics of who owned the gun and how the kept it is difficult to comment on the particular incident.
As I have stated in the past, I personally do not feel that people should have unrestricted accessibility to guns. Those that demonstrate responsibility and training with regards to the ownership and use of a firearm should own them. I submit that the owner of this particular firearm was probably careless and/or untrained. As such, IMO, should not have had a firearm. I feel that this person should be held accountable for their recklessness that allowed a firearm to fall into the hands of a 1st grader. This is not a valid argument to keep guns out of the hands of the responsible and the trained because it is their guns which are not used in this manner. The distinction is critical, IMO.
With regards to higher rates of homicide (the suicide angle is irrelevent), the reason is simple enough (read Sanford Strong’s “Strong on Defense” and/or Mas Ayoob’s “The Truth About Self Protection”). A large proportion of gun owners have absolutely no idea how to use a gun in a self defense situation and/or feel the need to use the gun to resolve the self defense situation (where as they should correctly use the firearm as a means of facilitating escape). Again, this is why I, and many other self defense experts, feel that training especially mindset and/or scenario based training is vital. Police studies have shown over and over again, when people own and use guns properly it saves lives, when they don’t it doesn’t. The critical factor is learning how to use a firearm properly (that DOES NOT mean how to AIM it).
No more than I’d want to change my opinion that people should be able to own cars when an elementary school child is run over by one. It’s a huge tragedy when it happens, but an emotional kneejerk reaction to ban cars is not the appropriate response, as it is not here.
Glitch says:
According to the news reports, the gun was stolen from the lawful owner (and reported as stolen a long time ago). Apparently neither the mother nor the father were prime examples of parenthood, one being a drug addict and the other being in prison.
You see, the instruction is out there, but it’s being ignored. You want to know why teaching gun safety doesn’t help much? I’m sure that you, like I did, went to school with kids who didn’t care to learn, who didn’t want to learn, who thought they already knew all they needed to know. (They were in school only because it was illegal for them to not go. But that’s another issue.) These guys aren’t gonna pay attention to someone telling them how to be responsible. And they grow up to be parents who don’t teach their kids responsibility. And their kids don’t value responsibility as a further consequence. It’s no wonder this kid didn’t see anything wrong with taking a gun to school; if he’d seen adults walking around armed, he would naturally think it was normal behavior. And I would not be surprised if he’d witnessed more than one murder already. Kids learn best by example.
All of you should know damn well that people would protest mightily if a law was passed requiring people to take a class and pass a safety test before they could buy a gun.
bantmof, quit bringing up cars! You know damn well that the vast majority of deaths caused by cars are accidents, whereas the majority of deaths caused by guns are deliberate acts, and that, of course, includes both homicides and suicides. When you use a gun to kill someone, you are using it for its designed purpose. When you use a car to kill, you’re using it for a purpose for which it was NOT designed. If you can’t see the distinction between an accident and a deliberate act, the difference between proper use and improper use, then I don’t know what to say to you.
My father owned a shotgun. My brothers and I were never allowed to touch it. We knew where it was kept, but to this day, I don’t know where the ammo was kept.
You want to know why we never touched his gun? We were taught to respect the property of others. We were expressly forbidden never to use ANYTHING that belonged to our parents without their explicit permission. That went for cars, motorcycles, the TV, ANYTHING.
It worked for us, but since we are not all alike, that same method would not work for all. As I mentioned earlier, some people think they already know everything and would not listen. Or they would learn just enough to pass the test and then deliberately ignore or forget whatever they were taught.
And when the risk is murder, that is a chance we should not be willing to take. When someone deliberately refuses to learn math, for example, the only person at risk is that person. When he refuses to learn gun safety, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US is at risk.
And that’s exactly what I’m talking about. This guy opposes any kind of qualification for gun ownership. He sees nothing wrong with licensing people to drive cars, but he sees a lot wrong with requiring a gun license. His biggest objection is that it would violate the 2nd Amendment.
I don’t know how long this column will stay on the website. The Orlando Sentinel does not leave Charley Reese’s columns on its website permanently.
Of course the vast majority are accidents. But this does not negate the point, which does not depend on intent, only on result. Consider knives then - the majority of fatal stabbings are not accidents. But someone else killing somebody with a knife does not mean I can’t own one. I’d never kill anybody with mine, and I can’t help what some other nutcase does with theirs.
I don’t actually own a gun, but I don’t own one because I chose not to. It is my choice, not anybody else’s. I will chose otherwise should someone ever try to tell me I can’t.
Jab, is your position that you support the actual, physical confiscation of guns by the government? Is there anyone else here who thinks that all or most guns should be conficated?
