# Right to Open carry? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 25, 2018, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535 "2018-07-25T02:17:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/201 "2018-07-31T12:12:53Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > How about a grand compromise? Let states decide gun laws and let states decide abortion laws. This would only work (for guns) if we had walls between the states where you could be searched when entering a neighboring state. Maybe Trump had the right idea about a wall after all, but it should separate “gun America” from “non-gun America”. I’d pay for that wall. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/202 "2018-07-31T12:32:25Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Yes! Those of you arguing that the militia part of the amendment is controlling almost demands that citizens be permitted to keep and bear military arms. If they’re well-regulated. Are they? (Hint: The Guard is) Would you even want everyone to be in the Guard? > [@](#): > > Why is it crazy? Article I: “The Congress shall have Power \* \* \* To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” _Suppress_, not enable. Very different things. You could look them up. The idea that a Constitution would provide for its own violent overthrow is, in fact, crazy. Never mind that it also provides for calling a new Convention if we ever decide it’s as inadequate as the Articles, with no need to suddenly switch from suppressing insurrections to supporting them. > [@](#): > > I am not saying that the United States in 2018 is a tyrannical government. Far from it. But in case it ever happens, it is much harder to subjugate an armed population, carrying military weapons, than it is to herd unarmed people. How many tanks, jets, and ships do you guys have stockpiled? Better get cracking. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/203 "2018-07-31T12:34:32Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > Miller died before the decision, and he and his attorney never made it to DC to argue / present evidence that shotguns have long been used in the military. Sawed-off ones? Leave all the relevant facts in place, please. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/204 "2018-07-31T14:00:13Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Yes, much like evolution is “only a theory”. I quoted several different independent articles by notable scholars in respected publications stating that the position spearheaded by Scalia in _Heller_ contradicts more than 75 years of jurisprudence. Papers on this subject abound, including even conservative gun advocates who support the outcome but condemn Scalia’s reasoning as incoherent. _Heller_ did not disturb or invalidate any Supreme Court precedent; SCOTUS has always held for an individual right without any militia conditioning . . . Even the _Heller_ dissents recognize this; as Breyer wrote (which the other dissenting Justices signed on to): "I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: ``` [INDENT](1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting)."[/INDENT] ``` So all three opinions of _Heller_ affirm that previous Supreme Court decisions held for an individual right. Absolutely without dispute _Heller_ invalidated _ **lower** _ federal court opinions which, beginning in 1942, inserted the “militia right” (_Cases v. U.S_, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942)) and the “state’s right” (_U.S. v. Tot_, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942)) interpretations into the federal courts. That’s where this “collective right” mischief started and that’s what SCOTUS in _Heller_ set right (understand that SCOTUS is not compelled to honor Circuit Court decisions; they are not “precedent” for SCOTUS). > [@wolfpup](#): > > That observation might have some merit if the 1st Amendment prefaced its text with a statement of the reasons for the rights it protected, enumerating certain reasons while others were conspicuous by their absence. The 2nd Amendment does precisely this; the 1st notably does not. The declaratory clause isn’t explaining why the right exists, it is stating a political reason why the pre-existing, never surrendered right is being held immune from the powers granted to government. > [@wolfpup](#): > > I don’t pretend to be a constitutional scholar, but the same argument of archaic irrelevance that is used against the 2nd Amendment itself can be brought to bear against contemporaneous writings, and indeed for many of the same reasons. Ultimately the idea of fundamental rights is always the creation of man, as demonstrated by the fact that while most advanced nations have specific or _de facto_ constitutional protections, and while many of those rights (like free speech) are remarkably similar and thus presumably fundamental, many others are not. There are significant constitutional differences even in very similar cultures, and also differences in how absolute those rights are presumed to be relative to larger societal interests. And one of the most notable omissions in the constitutions of almost all first-world nations is anything about guns, or any notion that owning a gun is some kind of inherent “right”. So I find that line of argument entirely unpersuasive. Only the US Constitution rests on the principle of a sovereign people in which / from which all power emanates. The government only possesses the limited powers conferred to it by the people and only exercises those powers with the consent of the governed. If the government ever exceeds the powers granted to it and becomes injurious to the rights of the people, it is the right of the people to rescind their consent to be governed and reclaim the powers granted . . . If this can not be done peacefully, then the people have the right to keep and bear arms which they never surrendered to retake those powers with violence. As you note, this is a unique system where the government is contractually bound to treat the rights of the people as inherent and not subject to the _legitimate_ powers of the legislature or executive. This was a primary argument against adding a bill of rights – referring again to Federalist 84 and Madison’s introduction of the proposed amendments to Congress (previously linked). Just because you personally reject those principles has no bearing on their actual enforcement. > [@wolfpup](#): > > > [@Abatis](#): > > > > Reminding lawmakers that they are hamstrung to only exercising the limited powers granted to the legislature, is the 2nd Amendment’s only job. > > Which more or less defeats everything you said before. How? > [@wolfpup](#): > > The 2nd Amendment in conjunction with the extraordinarily brazen _Heller_ interpretation severely hobbles effective gun control legislation in progressive states and violence-ridden cities. The 2nd Amendment and the new precedent is, IOW, precisely the problem. But for calling _Heller_ “new precedent”, you do demonstrate that you “get it” . . . That’s good! > [@wolfpup](#): > > > [@Abatis](#): > > > > One’s chances of getting shot rise and fall with a myriad of conditions and circumstances. > > And from the perspective of almost any non-American from Europe or the Commonwealth countries, one of the most significant risk factors is being in the United States. When discussing the subject of gun rights under the US Constitution there probably isn’t any argument less compelling than how other nations treat gun ownership or what their subject’s opinion of the US is. > [@wolfpup](#): > > [More than half of all Americans support _ **stronger** _ gun control](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/), [INDENT]“The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections.” _West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette_, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)[/INDENT] > [@wolfpup](#): > > with overwhelming support for barring gun sales to high-risk demographics What on Earth do you mean by “demographics”? What people comprise “high risk demographics”? > [@wolfpup](#): > > and banning the most dangerous types of weapon, I believe _Heller_ was quite clear that handguns can not be banned. > [@wolfpup](#): > > yet lobbyists like the NRA have made the subject so toxic that even discussing it is politically fatal to any aspiring politician of _ **any** _ party, even though Democrats as a demographic are almost unanimous in support of stronger gun control. Well, I’m not sure how you could do it but banning Democrats from owning guns would definitely reduce criminal use and thus injury and death by gunshot – probably by over 2/3’rds . . . While I can see the overall benefit in such a policy I can not support it because I believe strongly in the principle of equal rights and equal application of law for every person everywhere in the USA. Just because a law-abiding citizen happens to live in an urban, criminal-coddling hellhole, doesn’t mean their rights must be diminished. . ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/205 "2018-07-31T14:33:32Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Sawed-off ones? Leave all the relevant facts in place, please. Barrel shorter than 18" was part of Miller’s crime. In popular parlance, that is a sawed off shotgun. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/206 "2018-07-31T15:29:31Z")
Yes, and? Your point was that they are military weapons. ---
**Author:** ![burrunderthe\_saddle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@burrunderthe\_saddle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burrunderthe_saddle)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/207 "2018-07-31T16:05:07Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The idea that a Constitution would provide for its own violent overthrow is, in fact, crazy. :rolleyes: Not so crazy after a little research. It was at the top of Madison’s mind. Madison, Federalist # 46 > [@](#): > > Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the\*\* enterprises of ambition\*\*, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The key phrase is “enterprises of ambition”. The US military oath contains the words > [@](#): > > I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic Domestic enemies are those that are in “enterprises of ambition” against “simple government” and its constitution. The second amendment is not about overthrowing the government it is about defending the constitution of the people, by the people, and for the people . [http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic\_semper\_tyrannis/2012/12/madison-federal.html](http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2012/12/madison-federal.html) [https://history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html](https://history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html) Suggestions for reading: > **[Beyond This Horizon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_This_Horizon)** > > Beyond This Horizon is a science fiction novel by American writer Robert A. Heinlein. It was originally published as a two-part serial in Astounding Science Fiction (April, May 1942, under the pseudonym Anson MacDonald) and then as a single volume by Fantasy Press in 1948. It was awarded a Retro-Hugo award for best novel in 2018. > The novel depicts a world in which genetic selection for increased health, longevity, and intelligence has become so widespread that the unmodified "control naturals" a... > **[Out of the Ashes (novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_Ashes_(Ashes_series))** > > Out of the Ashes is the first book in The Ashes series by William W. Johnstone. > The book depicts life after a nuclear and biological holocaust has wiped out most of the world, and follows main character Ben Raines, a former Hellhound and ex-mercenary, as he explores the remnants of the United States in an attempt to document the effects of the bombs and the chaos that ensues. > Along the way, he meets a number of people, and explores towns devastated by marauders, murderers, and thugs, and the li... ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/208 "2018-07-31T16:11:49Z")
> [@burrunderthe\_saddle](#): > > The key phrase is “enterprises of ambition”. Another way to say “insurrection”. So? > [@](#): > > The second amendment is not about overthrowing the government it is about defending the constitution of the people, by the people, and for the people . But we keep getting told that We The People might become tyrannical against ourselves somehow, so we need arms to protect us from ourselves. Crazy. Oh, and it’s … \*interesting \*to see science fiction novels presented as references on Constitutional law. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/209 "2018-07-31T16:22:48Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes, and? Your point was that they are military weapons. They have been used by the military, as the shot spread is effective in close quarter combat such as trenches, room clearing, etc. H&K makes a tactical shotgun with a 14" barrel sold only to the police and military in the US, for example. My first exposure of their military use was during training with USMC Recon Sniper teams, and later during a meeting with procurement and development representatives of the SEALs. Here is a wiki with an overview of the use of the sawed-off shotgun. > **[Sawed-off shotgun | Police and military use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawed-off_shotgun#Police_and_military_use)** > > Historical military use of sawn-off shotguns includes use as a primary weapon for Confederate cavalry during the American Civil War. These muzzle-loaded weapons were used primarily for close-range combat and to supplement the availability of more traditional short-range weapons such as the saber or carbine. The availability of the source weapons and the ability to use a single ball, shot, or a mix of both as the situation required were reasons why they were initially desired by those establishing... > [@](#): > > Historical military use of sawed-off shotguns includes use as a primary weapon for Confederate cavalry during the American Civil War. These muzzle-loaded weapons were used primarily for close-range combat and to supplement the availability of more traditional short ranged weapons such as the saber or carbine. The availability of the source weapons and the ability to use single ball, shot, or a mix of both as the situation required were reasons why they were initially desired by those establishing Confederate cavalry units. They were replaced over time as more conventional arms became available and as the tactical use of cavalry shifted towards use as mounted infantry. > > In modern usage, minimum length and barrel length restrictions only apply to civilian use; military and police departments may issue short-barreled shotguns, and major manufacturers offer special models with barrels in the range of 10 to 14 inches (25 to 36 cm) as riot shotguns or combat shotguns for use in areas with restricted space. These are generally referred to as “entry shotguns”, because they are generally used for entering buildings, where the short easy handling is more important than the increased ammunition capacity of a longer shotgun. Breaching rounds provide another use for very short shotguns. These rounds are usually made of sintered powdered metal, but a normal buckshot or bird shot round will also work. A shotgun is used for breaching by placing the gun next to a door lock (0 to 2 inches away, 0 to 5 cm), and firing at a 45 degrees downward angle through the door between the lock or latch and the door frame. The impact of the projectile(s) opens a hole through the door, removing the latch or locking bolt. When through the door, the shot or sintered metal disperses quickly, and because it was aimed downwards, the risk of harming occupants on the other side of the breached door is minimized. Breaching guns used by police and the military may have barrels as short as 10 inches (25 cm), and they often have only a pistol grip rather than a full butt stock. Some models use a special cup-like muzzle extension to further minimize the risk of debris injuring the shooter. Because few rounds are fired, any sporting shotgun with a 3-round capacity could be shortened and used as a capable breaching shotgun. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/210 "2018-07-31T16:32:15Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > Well, I’m not sure how you could do it but banning Democrats from owning guns would definitely reduce criminal use and thus injury and death by gunshot – probably by over 2/3’rds . . . Are you trying to engage in an ad hominem attack against your own argument? Because let me tell you, filling your posts with crazy makes me doubt you as a source. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/211 "2018-07-31T16:54:56Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If they’re well-regulated. Are they? (Hint: The Guard is) Would you even want everyone to be in the Guard? No. Well regulated=well trained, not heaped upon by rules and regulations. Even assuming that bearing arms is for militia purposes only and nothing else, why would the framers, in an amendment to limit the power of the federal government, give it almost unfettered power to destroy the militia? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Article I: “The Congress shall have Power \* \* \* To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” _Suppress_, not enable. Very different things. You could look them up. > > The idea that a Constitution would provide for its own violent overthrow is, in fact, crazy. Never mind that it also provides for calling a new Convention if we ever decide it’s as inadequate as the Articles, with no need to suddenly switch from suppressing insurrections to supporting them. It is not for overthrowing the Constitution. It is for whenever the Constitution has already been supplanted. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > How many tanks, jets, and ships do you guys have stockpiled? Better get cracking. :rolleyes: You see how hard it was for our military to take Iraq, and we still haven’t taken Afghanistan. I mean, I’m not sitting here oiling up my AR-15 to fight the U.S. military, but as the Founders absolutely knew, revolution is the last resort of free people everywhere. Hopefully that will never happen in my grandchildren’s lifetimes. However, sometimes it is better to die a free man than to live as a slave. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/212 "2018-07-31T17:09:17Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > No. Well regulated=well trained, not heaped upon by rules and regulations. So, no, what you’re calling the militia does \*not \*meet the Constitutional requirement. Glad we agree. > [@](#): > > Even assuming that bearing arms is for militia purposes only and nothing else Wrong. The Constitution is simply silent on other purposes. > [@](#): > > It is not for overthrowing the Constitution. It is for whenever the Constitution has already been supplanted. In the opinion of whom? :dubious: And, if it’s already been supplanted, what purpose does the Constitution then serve? Who would care what it says? We’d already be past that point, at least in that fantasy. Please note that the Constitution provides a completely non-violent, parliamentary method of supplanting itself. > [@](#): > > However, sometimes it is better to die a free man than to live as a slave. Would you rather be a “slave”, i.e. citizen of a democratic republic which sometimes passes laws you don’t like, or a “slave” of the local bullyboy gang with their bangsticks and no fear of any higher authority? Or is it that you envision yourself as one of the bullyboys? It’s crazy no matter what. I love all that brave talk, Molon Labe and cold dead fingers and so forth. Must feel really good to say it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/213 "2018-07-31T17:13:29Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > We’ve been through this. As noted, if the founders saw a purpose to guns important enough to enumerate in the constitution, other than their use in militias for national defense, they were strangely reticent to mention it. Only the militia is mentioned. > > This is unsupportable nonsense. Sometimes facts are facts and have to be accepted. > > Fact: Americans are 10 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries. > > Fact: Compared to 22 other high-income nations in a recent study, the US gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. > Given these facts, trying to claim that the US is just “average” in gun violence is comically absurd. It’s the kind of argument that completely destroy’s the speaker’s credibility on a matter of plain fact. > > The only way to try to support such a comical argument is to disingenuously try to compare the US to high-crime third-world shitholes, because clearly, per the above, comparing US gun violence to civilized countries at a similar economic level is an utter fail. > > Even dragging in Mexico doesn’t work for you, despite the fact that Mexico is so dominated by drug gangs and corruption that many areas are virtually lawless, and is not a country any European or Commonwealth nation would want to compare themselves to; [according to this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate), using different stats than the above for mixed years, the US had 11.96 gun-related deaths per 100,000, while even Mexico had just 7.64. > > Russia is equally irrelevant as a comparison, because it has a very high crime and murder rate and a high level of lawlessness and corruption. s. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the \*people \*to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. See that word I italicized? “People”. They did mention it. Yep, the No true Scotsman Fallacy. “developed countries.”:rolleyes: (By the way, Mexico and Russia are developed nations, but of course you cherry picked them out) “22 other high-income nations”:rolleyes: Sure, yeah, if you can pick and choose what nations you want to compare the USA to, then you can make the uSA look great or bad. And, I dont care if it is a gun death or a knife death or a bomb death- I want to know what my chances of being murdered by _any_ method is. And that bogus cite includes suicides\*, of course. Suicides are not gun violence. They are a choice. A tragic and sad choice, in many cases, but a choice none the less. “third-world shitholes” are not “civilized”? Isnt that from Trump Playbook? And more than a tad racist? So, rather than try the bogus argument of picking and choosing date that supports my argument, as you did here, I went for ALL the nations. And for ALl the methods of murder. > **[List of countries by intentional homicide rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)** > > The list of countries by UNODC homicide rate is typically expressed in units of deaths per 100,000 individuals per year. A homicide rate of 30 (out of 100,000) corresponds to 0.03% of the population dying by homicide. The reliability of underlying national murder rate data may vary. Only UNODC-vetted data is used in the main table below. In some cases, it may not be as up to date as other sources. See further down as to why its data is used over other sources. > Homicide rates may be under-report... Out of 219 **NON** Cherry picked countries, the USA is right in the middle. That is _all_ the nations. Of the _entire world community,_ the USA is average. I could do what you did, and compare the USA to the Americans (continents) nations- why not, that’s just as good as “Developed” and “high income”. And there the USA ranks almost at the bottom, 24th out of 26. Boy, when you get to cherry pick data, you can prove anything, right? - gun grabbers \*love \*to include suicides among their stats, as they increase the numbers by 200% or so. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/214 "2018-07-31T17:37:53Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Yes, much like evolution is “only a theory”. I quoted several different independent articles by notable scholars in respected publications stating that the position spearheaded by Scalia in _Heller_ contradicts more than 75 years of jurisprudence. Papers on this subject abound, including even conservative gun advocates who support the outcome but condemn Scalia’s reasoning as incoherent. > > And one of the most notable omissions in the constitutions of almost all first-world nations is anything about guns, or any notion that owning a gun is some kind of inherent “right”. So I find that line of argument entirely unpersuasive. > > Which more or less defeats everything you said before. The 2nd Amendment in conjunction with the extraordinarily brazen _Heller_ interpretation severely hobbles effective gun control legislation in progressive states and violence-ridden cities. The 2nd Amendment and the new precedent is, IOW, precisely the problem. > > And from the perspective of almost any non-American from Europe or the Commonwealth countries, one of the most significant risk factors is being in the United States. > > If you’re counting me among those, you would be wrong. It’s not the people I have a problem with, it’s the insanely divisive politics that too rarely serves their interests, and the special interests that the political system does serve. [More than half of all Americans support _ **stronger** _ gun control](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/), with overwhelming support for barring gun sales to high-risk demographics and banning the most dangerous types of weapon, yet lobbyists like the NRA have made the subject so toxic that even discussing it is politically fatal to any aspiring politician of _ **any** _ party, even though Democrats as a demographic are almost unanimous in support of stronger gun control. Not notable scholars, notable writers. I noted the lack of Judges, Law professors, etc. But yes, as in any controversial decision, different opinions abound. How many writers out there have written arguments versus Roe? However, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, still the sources you are talking about are in the \*minority. - Ah, “First world nations”:rolleyes: I suppose that excludes “third world shitholes” :rolleyes:as you call them? But of course , you also exclude Russia and Mexico and others from “developed” or “First world” nations, as their data doesnt fit your points. Yes, and you know, they tried “effective gun control” for quite some time before Heller, and it didnt work. Of course, excuses were made, they always will be. Ah yes, polls. in that poll at that time, 52% (and bare majority) of Americans think gun controls should be stronger. And, of course, even with heller and the 2nd, they can be, that was made clear. Let’s see the most popular gun controls:"_About nine-in-ten Americans (89%) favor preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns. Nearly as many favor requiring background checks for private gun sales and at gun shows (84%) and barring gun purchases by people on no-fly or watch lists (83%). Roughly two-thirds or more strongly favor all of these proposals._ \*\*All of those are perfectly legal under Heller. \*\* In fact the first two are the law in many areas. But lets look at that last " barring gun purchases by people on no-fly or watch lists ". You know how inaccurate those lists are? Very. You know how you get on one of those lists? A Agent put you on. That’s it. There’s no judicial review, no probable cause. When Americans were educated about how crappy and undemocratic those “no-fly or watch lists” were, their support plummeted. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/215 "2018-07-31T17:39:34Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Sawed-off ones? Leave all the relevant facts in place, please. Confederate cavalry raiders used them, I dunno if that’s where I’d hang my hat, however. ---
**Author:** ![burrunderthe\_saddle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@burrunderthe\_saddle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burrunderthe_saddle)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/216 "2018-07-31T17:39:54Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > But we keep getting told that We The People might become tyrannical against ourselves somehow, so we need arms to protect us from ourselves. Crazy. [http://www.constitution.org/tyr/prin\_tyr.htm](http://www.constitution.org/tyr/prin_tyr.htm) US Tyrannical organizations: > **[Weather Underground](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground)** > > The Weather Underground was a far-left Marxist militant organization first active in 1969, founded on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan. Originally known as the Weathermen, the group was organized as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) national leadership. Officially known as the Weather Underground Organization (WUO) beginning in 1970, the group's express political goal was to create a revolutionary party to overthrow the United States government, which WU Th... > **[Students for a Democratic Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society)** > > Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was a national student activist organization in the United States during the 1960s and was one of the principal representations of the New Left. Disdaining permanent leaders, hierarchical relationships and parliamentary procedure, the founders conceived of the organization as a broad exercise in "participatory democracy". From its launch in 1960 it grew rapidly in the course of the tumultuous decade with over 300 campus chapters and 30,000 supporters record... > **[Symbionese Liberation Army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army)** > > The United Federated Forces of the Symbionese Liberation Army (commonly referred to simply as the SLA) was a small, American militant far-left organization active between 1973 and 1975; it claimed to be a vanguard movement. The FBI and wider American law enforcement considered the SLA to be the first terrorist organization to rise from the American left. Six members died in a May 1974 shootout with police in Los Angeles. The three surviving fugitives recruited new members, but nearly all of the... > **[May 19th Communist Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_19th_Communist_Organization)** > > The May 19th Communist Organization (also variously referred to as the May 19 Coalition, May 19 Communist Coalition or M19CO) was a US-based far-left revolutionary group formed by members of the Weather Underground Organization. The group was originally known as the New York chapter of the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee (PFOC), an organization devoted to promoting the causes of the Weather Underground legally, as part of the Prairie Fire Manifesto's change in Weather Underground Organiza In ad... > **[United Freedom Front](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Freedom_Front)** > > The United Freedom Front (UFF) was a small American Marxist organization active in the 1970s and 1980s. It was originally called the Sam Melville/Jonathan Jackson Unit, and its members became known as the Ohio 7 when they were brought to trial. Mainly led by Raymond Luc Levasseur and assisted by Tom Manning, between 1975 and 1984 the UFF carried out at least 20 bombings and ten bank robberies in the northeastern United States, targeting corporate buildings, courthouses, and military facilities.... [https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/a-homegrown-threat-islamist-extremist-plots-in-the-united-states](https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/a-homegrown-threat-islamist-extremist-plots-in-the-united-states) > **[Timothy McVeigh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh)** > > Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001) was an American domestic terrorist who perpetrated the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995. The bombing killed 168 people (19 of whom were children), injured 680, and destroyed one-third of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. It remains the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history. > A Gulf War veteran, McVeigh became radicalized by anti-government beliefs. He sought revenge against the United States federal government for ... > **[Jim Jones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones)** > > James Warren Jones (May 13, 1931 – November 18, 1978) was an American cult leader and mass murderer who led the Peoples Temple between 1955 and 1978. In what he termed "revolutionary suicide", Jones and the members of his inner circle planned and orchestrated a mass murder-suicide in his remote jungle commune at Jonestown, Guyana, on November 18, 1978. Jones and the events that occurred at Jonestown have had a defining influence on society's perception of cults. > As a child, Jones developed a... > **[David Koresh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh)** > > David Koresh (/kəˈrɛʃ/; born Vernon Wayne Howell; August 17, 1959 – April 19, 1993) was an American cult leader who played a central role in the Waco siege of 1993. As the head of the Branch Davidians, a religious sect and offshoot of the Seventh-day Adventists, Koresh claimed to be its final prophet. His apocalyptic Biblical teachings, including interpretations of the Book of Revelation and the Seven Seals, attracted various followers. > Coming from a dysfunctional background, Koresh was a memb... > **[Antifa (United States)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States))** > > Germany > Italy > Spain (Spanish Civil War) [http://canwebelieveit.info/2010/09/30/list-of-anti-american-organizations/](http://canwebelieveit.info/2010/09/30/list-of-anti-american-organizations/) > **[National Socialist Movement (United States)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Movement_(United_States))** > > Final solution > > The National Socialist Movement (NSM) is a Neo-Nazi organization based in the United States. It was a part of the Nationalist Front. Once considered to be the largest and most prominent National Socialist organization in the United States, in recent years its membership and prominence have plummeted. It is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. [https://www.broadleft.org/us.htm](https://www.broadleft.org/us.htm) > **[National Socialist Movement (United States)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Movement_(United_States))** > > Final solution > > The National Socialist Movement (NSM) is a Neo-Nazi organization based in the United States. It was a part of the Nationalist Front. Once considered to be the largest and most prominent National Socialist organization in the United States, in recent years its membership and prominence have plummeted. It is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. > **[Traditionalist Worker Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_Worker_Party)** > > The Traditionalist Worker Party (TWP) was a neo-Nazi political party active in the United States between 2013 and 2018, affiliated with the broader "alt-right" movement that became active within the U.S. during the 2010s. It was considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center's list. > Established by Matthew Heimbach under the name Traditionalist Youth Network (TYN), the group promoted white separatism and a white supremacist view of Christianity. As a member of the neo-Nazi National... > **[Black Lives Matter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter)** > > Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement that seeks to highlight racism, discrimination, and racial inequality experienced by black people and to promote anti-racism. Its primary concerns are police brutality and racially motivated violence against black people. The movement began in response to the killings of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Rekia Boyd, among others. BLM and its related organizations typically advocate for var In 2013, activi... In light of the list, It is advisable that We The People should bear arms! Not so crazy! ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/217 "2018-07-31T17:41:14Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > You see how hard it was for our military to take Iraq, and we still haven’t taken Afghanistan. Afghanis must be terrible shots then. They’ve managed to kill [1,865](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan#Killed_in_action_only) Americans in 15 years. Far more people were shot in Chicago in that same time. Having guns has almost nothing to do with it. Armed citizenry pretty much get massacred when trying to face a professional army. Afghanistan, like Vietnam, is able to go for decades like this because they simply refuse to capitulate. They are willing to tolerate terrible conditions forever. Eventually the occupying force gets tired and goes home. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/218 "2018-07-31T18:42:46Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Are you trying to engage in an ad hominem attack against your own argument? Because let me tell you, filling your posts with crazy makes me doubt you as a source. Neither an ad-hom or crazy. Wolfpup first said that there is “overwhelming support for barring gun sales to high-risk demographics”. Then he mentions “Democrats” as being a “demographic” . . . I played along. I expressed my puzzlement at the choice of that term to describe those who could be forbidden to own a gun. I’ve never heard anyone mention the mental incompetent “demographic”, the felon “demographic”, the wife beater “demographic” or the dishonorably discharged “demographic” (those being some of the federal 18 U.S.C. §922(g) gun dispossession criteria). My assignment of a 2/3’rds reduction in gun crime (if Democrats were to be barred from owning guns) is just an estimate given gun crime stats. The fact is, [**“almost 60 percent of U.S. firearm homicides occur in the 62 cities of the country’s 50 largest metros”**](https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/12/geography-gun-violence-cities-versus-metros/4044/), those areas are typically, reliably, predominately Democrat. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/219 "2018-07-31T18:48:42Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > My assignment of a 2/3’rds reduction in gun crime (if Democrats were to be barred from owning guns) is just an estimate given gun crime stats. The fact is, [**“almost 60 percent of U.S. firearm homicides occur in the 62 cities of the country’s 50 largest metros”**](https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/12/geography-gun-violence-cities-versus-metros/4044/), those areas are typically, reliably, predominately Democrat. Are you saying that holding liberal views makes a person more likely to shoot someone? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2018, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/220 "2018-07-31T18:51:19Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Are you saying that holding liberal views makes a person more likely to shoot someone? I think he’s saying he’s not correcting for population density. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535.md?page=12)