Justice Stevens Says Gun Ownership a Threat to Our Constitutional Structure

Great Debates
21

This may be because the blood on the streets is already there.

Homicides by gun are more than all other methods of killing someone combined in the US and has been for a long time. Only three countries in the world have more homicides by gun than the US does (cite).

Gun control only works if there is meaningful control. To date most restrictions have had loopholes big enough to drive an ocean liner through.

Yes it is enshrined in the Constitution but my opinion is Heller was decided wrongly…stunningly so frankly. Yes no one asked me, yes Heller/McDonald now inform current US law. Nevertheless I think there is an absolutely acceptable reading of the Constitution that permits far greater restriction. Afterall they already do that. “Arms” could mean any weapon by definition. The SCOTUS already allows arbitrary lines to be drawn on what weapons are permissible for the average Joe to own. So, you can stay within Constitutional boundaries and not toss it wholesale and achieve gun restrictions.

22

It never had to be a liberal/conservative issue, and in fact it is not, strictly speaking, because there is considerable crossover with regard to guns. The reason it is perceived this way is because Democrats have historically adopted gun control as a party issue.

As for being a mess, part of that is that this discussion naturally lends itself to rhetoric. Also, see the next part of this post.

Machine pistols and full-automatic weapons are tightly controlled.

Armor-piercing ammunition is a rhetorical device (virtually all centerfire rifle ammunition can pierce body armor, and hollow-point handgun ammunition, something singularly unsuited for overpenetration, has been called armor-piercing.

“High-capacity magazines” is yet another rhetorical device. Changing magazines is easy, for one, and if the weapon was designed initially to accept a 20-round magazine how is that not deemed a “standard-capacity” magazine? More to the point, a weapon’s lethality cannot be inferred from magazine capacity.

These are arguments that take on a life of their own, when a moment’s thought a bit of research should be able to convince you that they exist only to scare people. And is that ever a good way to make law, because of fear?

You don’t have to be. “Anti-gunner” is another charged appellation. It’s OK that you don’t like guns. Not everybody does, and we can respect that. But if you make a bad argument with no support and refer to debunked studies and talking points as God’s own truth, must we respect that?

It’s not too late to salvage this thread. But the onus is on you to do so.

23

I cannot argue with the statistics you quoted. I will note, however, that they have been diminishing for years overall.

When the Violence Policy Center or the Brady Campaign claimed there would be “blood on the streets” following the passage of laws such as states changing their concealed carry policies to “shall issue”, they were referring to an increase over what already existed. It hardly makes sense that one would refer to something already existing and then use later use that to prove that the policy was bad, does it? One must observe a change to be able to comment intelligently on the wisdom of a law. In any event, there has been no increase in gun violence as a result of these policies, which means that it was nothing more than a rhetorical device, a scare tactic.

24

Oh great, now only criminals will have a Constitution. :frowning:
There are two debates (at least). What will the pragmatic effects of the ruling be? Will Chicago fall into despair because it’s ability to regulate guns is diminished? Will the prevalence of guns and demagoguery lead to political violence?

and

Does the 14th incorporate all Amendments? It’s so odd that the right generally likes to use words such as judicial activism, originalist, and textualist as empty buzzwords for rulings they don’t like (it’s fun to see both sides get reversed).

The comment referred to in the OP is the latter.

I, personally, favor the conventional wisdom approach to incorporation. As the lay person and they’re more likely than not to believe that all ten (well, nine if you want to avoid a recursive loop) apply equally to the states. I think it’s in line with doctrines of Federal supremacy and preemption (among others), and would have a hard time distinguishing between what should and shoudl not be incorporated without relying on arbitrary policy choices.

As for Constitutional longevity, I daresay a better society–one that adheres to the spirit of the Bill of Rights–is one that incorporates all rather than one that incorporates none.

25

Fine but shouldn’t you have to consider the flip-side as well?

People want guns to protect themselves. Statistically can it be shown that more guns decrease crime? I know you can point to anecdotes of people protecting themselves with a gun but I am looking for overall effects where the lowering of crime and/or greater numbers of people surviving attack because they had a gun can be directly attributed to loosening of gun laws.

We accept the danger automobiles possess because they provide exceptionally useful services to our society which is a good thing. Guns, like cars, have a downside associated with them which should be balanced against the benefit they provide to society.

For guns that balance seems terribly lopsided to bad effects and not good effects.

26

Is it not enough to note that murders and/or gun-related crime is down? In light of that, an an increase in gun ownership is at worst neutral, even if you are unwilling to argue that increased gun ownership is the cause of the decrease.

A policy with neutral effects cannot be seen as a bad policy, can it? If so, how?

27

That’s just sad. Please read the Court decision the next time before posting on it.

28

emacknight (and others): It may seem counter-intuitive, but the Bill of Rights does not automatically apply to the states. See this Wiki article on the Doctrine of Incorporation:

[

](Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia)

29

Of course not. You know as well as I do that correlation does not equal causation.

It can be suggestive and as such be worthy of a closer look but increased gun ownership has not been shown to decrease gun violence. Perhaps economic factors were the prime pusher behind such numbers.

Further, it is not really neutral. The downsides remain. Crime may have decreased but people are still being killed with guns. If there was a product in the US that killed 25 people a day and had no other discernible benefit (say a toy or something) it’d be off the market in a heartbeat.

As it happens gun crime is on the rise recently (cite).

30

The “more guns means less/more crime” argument is fallacious from the start, since gun availability and crime cannot be absolutely connected.

What if I told you about an American city of 171,909 people. This city has no significant local ordinances regarding guns, nor does the county nor State which it lies within. Within this city:

  • Concealed carry is not only allowed, there is a relatively high number of permit holders relative to the rest of the state.

  • There is no gun registration whatsoever.

  • There are no “one gun a month” or similar restrictions.

  • There are no “gun show” restrictions other than the numerous existing Federal ones.

  • There is no ban on handguns.

  • There is no ban on “assault weapons” or any other semi-automatic weapon.

  • Even fully automatic weapon ownership is allowed (provided that you meet all Federal requirements).

So what was the murder rate of this hellhole, which surely must have blood washing the gutters? According to the FBI, the latest statistics show 1 murder per 171,909 residents. Let me repeat that - 1. In Overland Park, Kansas. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_08_ks.html

And IIRC that murder was not committed with a gun, but with a rope and knife.

Let’s compare this rate with some of the oases of gun control out there.

Overland Park, Kansas: (1/171,909)

New York: 523/8,345,075 (1/15,965)

Los Angeles: 384/3,850,920 (1/10,028)

Chicago: 510/2,829,304 (1/5,548)

Washington DC: 186/591,833 (1/3,181)

Now you will argue that those are all bigger cities, they’re all more urban, they have different demographics, etc. and that would be correct. Of course it’s unfair to compare the killing fields of Overland Park with New York (for one thing, life doesn’t suck here in Kansas…but I digress.)

But it’s equally unfair to make any blanket statement or sweeping generalizations on this subject.

31

Your cite shows a leveling off with a tiny blip at the end, and only to 2006. Are you sure you are 100% correct here with the way you’ve characterized that? Really? Let’s see the 2007-2009 figures, please, divided by the population of the United States so we can see the rate. If we want to do a fair and balanced comparison, that is.

32

Nice try to handwave away the very important distinctions between those two types of places. Good debate tactic but not going to fly here.

And I am not making blanket statements. I am looking at the overall stats as I can find them. If forty people are shot in Chicago in one weekend (happened not even two weeks ago) and no one is shot in Overland Park, Kansas, then all is well?

33

Is there really any other way? I was under the impression it was the only way to make a law.

34

Cambridge, Massachusetts (at 101k) is similar in size to Overland Park and had 0 murders in 2007: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_08_ma.html

35

<Noun> can be a threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I can think of an impressive number of alternates for that statement.

People
Beliefs
Words
Knives
Dogs
Alcohol
Drugs
Finances
Property

36

Nope. Sounds like someone needs to change the political, moral, personal responsibility culture in Chicago, to make it more like Overland Park. I’m sure the Chicago machine is working on that stat.

37

And this is exactly where it all falls apart. Who the fuck cares if some city in Kansas DOESN’T have gun violence? I know of a city that didn’t have a single house burn down last year, do we all turn off our smoke detectors?

Places like Chicago, NY, LA, and Detroit have a problem with gun violence. Shouldn’t they have the authority to deal with that problem, in their own way?

If some city in Kansas had a problem with auto theft, drunk drivers, graffiti, or excessive dog shit on the side walk, they would no doubt want to be able to take measures to deal with that problem.

For some reason, they aren’t allowed to address problems with guns.

Is there something Overland Park, Kansas, does to deal with all their gangs that the rest of the world doesn’t know about?

38

Oddly enough, only beliefs and words are protected under the constitution (maybe people and property to some extent).

Since you bring up that list, does that give us permission to treat guns the way we treat those items?

39

Firstly, let’s assume that the government should only do things which are supported by evidence. If there’s no evidence in the world that crime or murder increase or decrease based on the legality of guns well…I’m sorry to say but banning guns may make some people feel safer, but it doesn’t make them actually safer.

And no, they shouldn’t have the authority. Ultimately, there are bigger long-term worries than crime. Crime is like mowing the lawn, it just keeps happening and you’re not going to stop it. Some general storming the Whitehouse and declaring himself President, some foreign power attacking the nation, a civil war, etc. these are all cases where if you’re caught with your pants down, that’s a problem with a damned lot of finality. The right to arms is in the constitution for several very good, long-term reasons. Especially with no evidence that there’s a link between the legality of weapons and crime or murder, there is no reason that any small region of the land should have the right to decide that their people don’t have the right to defend themselves, their country, or democracy.

40

The most basic interpretation is that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right that is inherent to being a citizen of the United States.

To pick an arbitrary example, selling liquor is not a Constitutional right. Some states can set the bar (heh) higher or lower–just because New York grants you the right/permission to sell beer doesn’t mean that Kansas must also allow you to do so.

However, as a citizen of the United States, you have the right to access an attorney when you are under arrest. This right transcends state borders. Whether you are arrested in New York or Kansas, you have that right as a citizen.

Though the interpretation of the Second Amendment (e.g., whether it applies to state militias or people) is certainly open to philosophical disagreement, it has been held that the Bill of Rights guarantees to you as a citizen the right to possess a firearm (absent reasonable restrictions, yadda yadda yadda).

So, if New York decided it had a problem with too many people getting off on technicalities, it is not free to prohibit your access to an attorney. Nor, it seems, can it prohibit your access to a gun. All because access is one of your Constitutional rights.

Again, this is heavily debatable on the philosophical side. Had Bush not had the opportunity to put two conservative-activist judges on the court, it likely would have come out differently, and this thread would be the reverse. But as it is, this ruling seems to have held that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states just as the 1st, 5th, etc. do.