I know lots of people thought the Articles of Confederation were pretty close to useless, but “tyrranical”? 
You are correct xeno, I did fly off the handle there a bit. mhendo, I apologize.
The thing that got me riled up is that your post looked like a primer for HCI adherents that have no inclination to actually debate, just to preach to us “misguided”, or better yet “criminal”, “gun nuts” and tell us how wrong and dangerous we are. That may not have been your intent, but that’s what it looked like to me.
Ah, I didn’t know Miller had come up, I didn’t even recall the name of the case. I imagine it was a tedious and contentious argument, as all these gun debates are. Me, I have no use for guns, I’m a pacifist. And it appears we both have better things to do than talk guns.
How do you figure? Additionally, why do you seem to believe that someone else’s crimes should require a punishment for me?
You also quoted…
Nice. Now do an assessment about ALL forms of crime. If you pick-and-choose your information, you can get any results you want.
Would you mind letting us know if you think the whole document is out of date, or if that arguement is just particularly useful when dealing with the 2nd Amendment?
Also, mhendo I might add that if you are going to use statistics, you may want to use ones that are actually recent. The most recent cite you used is 5 years old, and the 43-1 joke you quoted is based on data over 20 years old. Gun-grabbers like these stats because they ignore economic reasons for changes in crime rates. You may want to address recent crime stats which show all crime rates going down dramatically.
Anthracite wrote:
Unnecessary.
The Federal courts have already ruled (since 1875) that the 2nd Amendment only limits Federal lawmaking power. If tomorrow, California passes some new law banning everything more harmful than a slingshot, this law will stand. You will not be able to overturn it on 2nd Amendment grounds.
Whether this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a good one – in light of the way the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause extended the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to the State level – is a subject for a different debate. My point is, as the case law stands today, States whose State constitutions do not have a reiteration of the 2nd Amendment in them (e.g. California) can pass any anti-firearms laws they want.
Unless the California Constitution forbids such action.
From Article 1, Section 1 of The California State Constitution.
I don’t see a “slingshot” as being very effective in defending life and liberty, or protecting property.
Granted, this isn’t as clear as the 2nd Amendment, but it suggests that people in California have a right to protect themselves and their property… and a gun is the best form of defense against an invader.
This is one of the best thought out, most rational comments, that I have seen in a gun rights vs gun control debate.
This is absolutely true. However, it doesn’t help that much when you remember that the biggest problem is trying to satisfy the differing worldview of everyone. Some people (a small number, thankfully) believe that guns are icky, terrible, serve no purpose, etc. and should be removed from existence. On the opposite extreme, we have some people (also a small number, thankfully) who believe that everyone should have a gun, that we need grenade launchers, our very own, personal vials of Anthrax, and hydrogen bombs in every box of Rice Krispies.
You try reaching a compromise 'tween those two groups of people… ::sigh::
I don’t know about this. First, we would need a coherent definition of “weapon of mass destruction”. You and I may have one definition…gun controllers will likely have another.
In any case, and in response to the OP, I think a good way to approach the issue of “where do we draw the line” would be to look at the issue of “threat”. For instance, I have the right to posess a gun, but I don’t have the right to point that gun at you. That would be an implied threat. If I do point a gun at you, you are within your rights to take the gun away from me, in self defense. Further, I think you can legitimately delegate that right to the state.
So…a gun kept in my house is no danger to you unless I use it. A vial of anthrax is, unless I take special precautions. So, if I keep a vial of anthrax in my house, I am threatening you. Therefore you, and by extension a state entity representing you, have the right to take it from me.
Looking at the 2nd amendment, I think we can infer that its authors adhered to this commom sense rule, that you could have a gun, but not go around pointing it at people, and meant for us to continue doing so. What is different today is the development of weapons that are by their very nature, always “pointed” at someone. So I don’t think it would be a contravention of the 2nd amendment for the state to regulate them.
In theory we could try this. In practice, if we opened the thing up, who knows what might get into it.
Actually, if you just used the last clause in that sentence: “any…activity where the goal of said activity is not to cause harm to law-abiding citizens.” I think you’re fine.
This makes no sense to me. Weapons that can “1) fire multiple shots in a very short period of time, 2) fire a large number of rounds without reloading, or 3) be easily concealed.” can also be used for “target practice and hunting as well as self-protection”.
AHEM Did you not see mhendo’s original Pit-worthy post? You spent most of this post talking to him, but didn’t bring it up. Then you berate someone else for not being civil?!
I am glad you noted the date here. 1875. Before the 14th amendment was used to apply any part of the Bill of Rights to the states. Precedents like this one on the 1st amendment and others have been resoundingly overturned. As you noted in your own post, “the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause extended the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to the State level”. Simply because the issue hasn’t been directly addressed, do you honestly think we should still accord this precedent any force? I don’t think that the fact that the 3rd amendment hasn’t been addressed either means the state of Califoria can quarter troops in the homes of its citizens.
Are you saying that each and every legal precedent that has not been addressed and overturned directly still stands?
Absolutely. Of course, any such decision, if legal authority is exercised under its color, may be found to be erroneous and overturned then. However, no judge in the land is going to say the judicial equivalent of, “My god! I can’t believe you were stupid enough to rely on that decision!”
Weird_AL_Einstein wrote:
Sadly, ExTank (one of the most pro-gun posters here on the SDMB) has expressed strong doubt that the 14th Amendment would be ruled to extend the 2nd Amendment to the States, if state-level anti-gun laws were challenged on that basis right now. He feels that the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court would vote against it, not because it doesn’t make good Constitutional sense, but simply because it would go against the grain of the current justices’ personalities.
Did you not see SPOOFE’s reply to that original mhendo post? I don’t think I could top that. Also, I think I made it pretty clear that I think mhendo’s viewpoint is self-limiting. Would you like me to patrol the forums here, “berating” everyone equally, or will you allow me the luxury of helping someone with valid points to make stay cool? (Cuz I’m not gonna shut up.)
California doesn’t need the 3rd Amendment for that. Its own Stat Constitution forbids it. The California Constitution is very similar to the Bill of Rights, except that any protections to firearm ownership are not directly addressed. Indeed, things as “protection” and such are only vaguely alluded to… gun ownership could possibly be defended based on those, but don’t count on it.
Bah. Stupid “e” key. Change “Stat Constitution” to read “State Constitution”, and that will make everything jolly.
I admit I have not read the whole thread. But for a moment, put less emphasis on the “arms” and more on the “bear”. Change your perspective a little. Does bear mean to keep at home in the rifle case in the event of an intruder? Does it mean to apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon? Does it mean to run up and down your street with your new automatic? The “bear” of this has been narrowed somewhat by the idea of “brandishing” which is generally not permitted. Just remember, it’s not just the WHAT, but also the HOW that has to be considered. Perhaps a better understanding of what limitations were meant by the latter will help in defining “arms”.
Well…duh. Of course. That’s a whole 'nother issue. All I can think to say is, with the Bush v. Gore decision it feels good to see folks on the other side bitching about the SC for a change.
But you have to take special precautions with both: both are a danger if wielded, so what is the difference?
As an Australian, I have trouble with this entire right: to me it seems like a barely veiled excuse for treason. A Texan friend of mine (who owns several guns) says that the trigger for the 2nd Amendment - when is there tyranny and who decides that the tyranny exists that should be resisted - is one of the thornier issues in the philosphy of gun ownership in the US.
If the right to bear arms is a right to prevent the exercise of tyranny by the government, then you must arm yourself to the teeth because the government has greater resources than citizens, and how else practically would you stand a chance against tanks? The framers of the 2nd amendment could not have imagined the technological advantage the State would have over its citizens, and to ensure you have the ability to effectively exercise your right, then you need to keep up.
But aren’t you under a negative obligation to ensure that those weapons are not used for any other purpose? Or more specifically, to absolutely ensure that your weapons do not harm your fellow citizens? Your right to bear arms is against the State - there is no right to home defence against intruders, or to allow them to fall into criminal’s hands through your own neglect.
Caching your weapons in your backyard seems to be the answer to me. Dig a big deep hole, have a big steel box with your weapons, sit back and wait for tyranny. When tyranny arrives, if it arrives, and however you personally chose to determine that it has arrived, then you go and dig up your box of tank-busting missiles or whatever. In the meantime, no one breaks into your house and steals your weapons for use in crime, you don’t get mad with your neighbour for letting his dog crap on your lawn and shoot him in a fit or anger (hopefully you’ll have calmed down by the time you dig your guns out of the hole), and you don’t accidentally shoot your son when he gets in late at night.
If you don’t have a backyard, then seal them into the walls of your house, or separate the components of your assault rifle and ammunition and hide them throughout your house. Tyranny won’t appear in seconds - odds are, you’ll have at least a few hours to put it all together, because a tyrannous government’s forces can’t be everywhere at once. Tyrannous forces will be securing the local TV station and shooting the mayor to replace him with an authoritarian cadre, and that gives you time to put your howitzer together.
I don’t see the difference between having Sarin gas and assault rifles. You are out to stop your government from violating your rights. Each are as dangerous as the other, and gas is more effective, especially against soldiers in bullet proof armour. If you can keep such weapons dormant and safe until tyranny, then go right ahead and stock up. But if you can’t keep them from harming your fellow citizens (who you have no right to harm), then you shouldn’t have Sarin gas, assault rifles or shotguns.
Anticipating that someone might say, “Oh-ho! We should then also lock up our bulldozers because they can also kill our fellow citizens by accident!”, I point out that bulldozers are not permitted to you to overthrow your government. They are there to bulldoze. Guns are permitted to you on a much more restricted basis.
My Texan friend incidentally has a safe under his bed, with a quick access finger-tapping combination lock, in which he stores his weapons. This is commendable and responsible gun ownership - if you are going to own a piece of machinery specifically designed to kill people, then at least make it safe. But even then, he only has a right to bear arms to overthrow a tyrannous government, and someone might steal his safe. Far better to have the safe in the ceiling, or if he can’t guarantee no one will steal them and harm others, or that he’ll accidentally harm someone himself, have no guns at all.
[sub]I’ll be back in a 14 hours or so, to carry on this debate…[/sub]
Untrue. A vial of anthrax is dangerous even if there’s nobody within fifty feet of it. A gun is only dangerous if someone is holding it. THAT is the difference.