Right to Open carry?

Great Debates
441

Disguising your rage as humor is an old tactic, but sure. At least you now admit that your joke wasn’t even funny, or a joke, or relevant to the discussion.

To be fair, the foam flecked rage bit was a bit of copying of your words and commentary about your perceptions of how other people take your comments. To be honest, I see it as more of a general seething anger at those who would dare disagree.

That you feel that I accused you of something is entirely up to you. I was just making an analogy of when some people think jokes are funny, and others do not. If you took that comment personally, that is on you, not on the comment.

I’ll take the dog and the board game, but you can keep that race card to hand out to the next person that you disagree with.

442

No, what I said is that a ban on felons owning guns is not a “gun ban”. It’s a felon ban if anything. However, a ban on owning handguns or assault guns are both gun bans.

Yes, I know that despite your constant efforts to drag us away from the OP.

No, Switzerland is weird. Lots of guns, little crime. And lots of guns in private hands also.

Yes, those that WANT to or WISH to pass laws do call it that. The minority , those that are NOT in charge of making laws. The majority, those in power, those that run the government, do not call it a loophole. Thus it is not.

443

But, we are not talking about banning hand guns or assault rifles here, but only talking about who is qualified to possess a gun, and more specifically, who is qualified to possess a gun in public.

How so, I am staying on topic as to how gun control should keep guns out of unqualified people, especially in public. You keep going on digressions about bans.

Right, because they have a gun control policy that works to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill.

We could do the same, but we choose not to.

Okay, so what you are saying is that the ability for a person to legally sell their gun to an unqualified individual, allowing people to profit off of feeding guns into the black market is the intent of those who are in power, and it is not just a side effect of a poorly formulated law?

That’s food for thought, I hadn’t thought of it that way.

444

When have we tried?

You have a strange view of what constitutes law, then. If a law is passed and some people decide not to abide it, they aren’t law-abiding, and can expect imprisonment.

Except for everywhere else.

Whose liberty are you referring to? The liberty and security of those you put in fear and mortal peril, or your liberty to put them in fear and mortal peril and degrade their security? You see yourselves as the good guys - okay, everybody does - and you look for objective standards to confirm it, but unfortunately those standards show the opposite.

445

Deriding any and all constructive proposals while disdaining to provide any of your own is indeed an avoidance tactic.

446

Qualified is an odd way to put it. I would say it’s more who is entitled to the right and who isn’t. Qualified has a connotation of needing to meet some standard for proficiency, though I think you are using it to basically mean entitled.

They generally have gun control policies that keep guns out of more than the hands of just criminals and mentally ill…and even in the case of criminals they still fail.

We have to work within the context of our Constitution. Generally, the countries that have very strict regulations on firearms access or outright bans don’t have a protected right guaranteed in their constitution. And when I mean generally, I am saying no one has that except the US afaik.

This thread is about the question the OP is asking in the context of the system we have, not the one we (well some of us) wish we had. Pointing out that X other country does something in a certain way and that ‘we could do the same, but we choose not to’ isn’t accurate in the context of the actual system we have. Sure, we COULD choose to be just like the UK, say, or Australia or even Canada…if we choose to reinterpret the 2nd so it means something different, or ignore it. But who would the ‘we’ be in this context who would be making what choice and how would they make it to get everyone else to go along with that choice?

447

Supreme Court decisions do meet that definition, pending statutory or Constitutional changes. They are unappealable, as you may have heard.

Your word was “loath”.

That was a remarkably juvenile statement.

Of course there is. But you deny any possibility that the interpretation you prefer might not be correct. Why all the controversy, do you think? Why are so many people so wrong? Hint: It’s right in the damn text.

Again, there is no other logically consistent conclusion.

Increasing the count of adverbs and repetitions does not make an argument more solid. It just makes it look more desperate.

Reversed, actually, despite Scalia’s argle-bargle and contortions.

I’m happy to point it out every time you do it. Maybe it will sink in eventually.

IOW you ain’t done shit and you ain’t gonna. Quit pretending.

The rest of that diatribe of yours is pure projection and juvenile blame-throwing, replete with repetition and adverbs.

And they are under tight control legally, for those reasons. There is essentially no organized, quasi-religious resistance to all the efforts to limit those bad effects, unlike with guns.

Are you willing to join us in getting the Second Commandment repealed, then? Why not?

Article I, Clause 15: “The Congress shall have Power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

The Constitution is a fascinating document. You really ought to read the rest of it sometime.

Because you won’t fucking listen. You’d rather rant.

448

Assault weapons “ban”, nationwide. Handgun Bans in several cites. Waiting periods, background checks for purchase thru dealers- long waiting periods in some areas. Gun registration, classes, bans on parts, bans on new models of guns, bans on magazines over 10 rounds, permit to purchase, bans on open carry, concealed carry heavily restricted, bans on automatic weapons, background checks on all sales- all of these in some states.

I said “otherwise law abiding citizens”. In some/many states they put gay men in jail for having sex. Those men were “otherwise law abiding citizens”.

Nope, not in half the nations of the world, not in Russia, not in Mexico.

Are you really afraid of your life from guns, being as driving puts you at five times the risk? Being as being in the same house as a smoker puts your at five times the risk? And if you are a smoker- a hundred times the risk?

449

Hm…so you assert that all USSC decisions are by fiat then? Interesting.

And your’s was ‘enemy’.

My word would be ‘perceptive’.

What a mess. Do you ever read what you are writing? First off, it was YOU who said that no other interpretation was possible (paraphrasing), not I. I never said that there weren’t any other interpretations of Miller.

Then, in the same sentence you tell me that I’m denying any interpretation you go on to say, well, there really isn’t one, because those who think differently about it are wrong. :stuck_out_tongue: Seriously man, you need to edit more and spew less.

:wink:

:stuck_out_tongue:

Heller was reversed? Can you provide more info on this?

You must think repeating this is scoring you points or something. Or you are getting paid every time you use it I guess.

Translation…I got nuffin. No worries man, your whole post translates to this, as you did zero to address anything I actually said, just cut and paste snippets and disjointed flip flops and weird repetitions. It’s all good…I think it’s what we all love about your posts, Elvis.
And they are under tight control legally, for those reasons. There is essentially no organized, quasi-religious resistance to all the efforts to limit those bad effects, unlike with guns.

Wait…is this an actual question that is reference to something I actually posted? Is this…new content from you, not on the tape recorder?? I’m…well, stunned. Really.

Sure…I’m totally willing to join an organization with the goal of repealing the 2nd. Sign me up. Where is the first meeting?

And…?

I have. AND I’ve bothered to read the OTHER writings of the people who formulated it as well, to gain insights into what they were thinking, especially wrt something as thematically confusing as the 2nd. Unlike you, I didn’t just google the words, read them in a 21st century context and say I understood exactly what it meant. I read Madison’s thoughts on firearms, read the formative history of WHY many of the FF thought an individual right to keep and bear arms was important, dug into what exactly the context of the militia was and why it’s in there, looked at the early drafts to see what they were trying to do and how it morphed into the strange text we got. You should really try to do some of this. But I know you won’t, because this ain’t our first rodeo together, and I know, for a fact that all of this and more has been pointed out to you in the past and…

Exactamundo. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

450

Well, I know my interpretation is a helluvalot closer to the philosophical, historical and legal truth than yours . . Your interpretation is wrong because you choose to ignore the plain and unambiguous affirmation of foundational constitutional principle by the US Supreme Court, that the right to arms is a retained right, no part of it ever being placed in the care and control of the federal government. The Court calls it a “pre-existing right”, a right that the people possessed before pen was put to parchment to empower government.

You choose to ignore SCOTUS when it tells us that since the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, the right is in no manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

You choose to ignore that unequivocal statement and instead conjure a myriad of conditions and qualifications by “interpreting” restrictions on the right from words that the right in no manner depends upon.

To me, that is the definition of anti-constitution argle-bargle and contortions.

Heller’s individual right interpretation did not disturb or reverse overturn any Supreme Court precedent. The dissents confirmed this, saying that ALL opinions issued that day stood on the individual right interpretation and that the individual right interpretation is the holding that is represented in SCOTUS precedent on the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment.

Without a doubt Heller invalidated lower federal court decisions that held that the 2nd Amendment only protected a right of the states to form and direct their militia (Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942)) or a right reserved to people when acting within the militia (U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942)) and the dozens of decisions that used those illegitimate legal reasonings.

You should notice these anti-individual “collective right” interpretations were a child of the 20th Century, not the founding period and it shouldn’t need to be said but since you are so wrong on so much, Circuit court opinions are not “precedent” for the Supreme Court.

Again, repealing the 2nd Amendment will have no effect on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The right is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment, thus the right to arms is not in any manner dependent on the words of the Amendment.

Look at it this way, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t “do” anything but redundantly forbid the federal government* to exercise powers it was never granted. You don’t need to alter or remove the 2nd Amendment, you need to ***add ***to Article I, Section 8, granting a new power to Congress to allow it to conjure a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen.

*and now state governments – McDonald v Chicago . . .

Laughable coming from someone who needs to learn the basics of the foundational principles of the Constitution.

People who are NOT enrolled members of the militia are exempt from militia regulations.

The maxim of, “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” is the binding rule. This is a principle that is evident in multiple clauses of the Constitution regarding federal control and command of the militia, see Art I, §8, cl. 16 and Art II, §2, cl. and the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

.

451

My point was that if I propose a law requiring seat belts to be installed in cars, it is fair to assume that I have no hostility towards cars, or want to start down the slope of outlawing cars. I simply want to make cars safer, even if it adds a nominal expense to the price of cars.

However, if out of one side of my mouth I talk about how nobody needs anything more than a go-cart, and the rest of the world doesn’t have our obsession with fast cars, that tens of thousands of deaths per year in cars are not worth it so you can use your substitute penis while driving your Camaro, but I suppose that with background checks and permits issued according to need, Farmer Bob could maybe keep a truck on his farm for farm work only, you might be a mite suspicious when I propose the seat belt requirement as that I am simply taking a first step toward my stated goal.

I’m not banning cars because they are cars, but to save lives because of my belief that such car bans will save lives. Likewise, you are not banning guns because of the esoteric reason that they are guns, but because you believe that by banning guns it will save lives. That’s debatable, but you are for banning guns; that’s the point.

452

And has been mentioned many times, that was purely cosmetic. It was the bill that was politically feasible at the time, but it didn’t do much. Gun manufacturers changed a few cosmetic features, and kept selling pretty much the same thing.

Those had an effect, in that if you were reported carrying a handgun in the city, you were pointed out to the police and arrested. This helped to prevent people from carrying guns in cities. Now that that is overturned thanks to 2A, those restrictions no longer apply.

And in some states, that seems to be working. But, the one thing that we have not tried is outlawing the selling of guns to unknown individuals. No matter what you do with

And in some/most states, they put murderers in jail for murdering people. Those murderers were “otherwise law abiding citizens”.

You do realize that bringing up these countries is irrelevant to the discussion. They are much less the US than countries like Switzerland or Australia. If you are in Mexico, and you have a problem with gang violence, you don’t go to the police. If you think that we have no business being a safer country than Mexico or Russia, then by all means, keep bringing them up.

I can control all those other stats. I can drive more, or I can drive less. I can choose to drive safe paths, or I can choose less secure roads. I can increase my proficiency with driving by taking classes or courses, or just practice. I can choose not to live with a smoker, and I can choose not to smoke.

What I cannot do, is to prevent a toddler from getting a hold of his or her parent’s unsecured gun and shooting my nephew. I cannot prevent a disturbed individual from getting a gun and shooting up a concert. I cannot prevent an outcast student from getting a gun and shooting up a school. These are all things that we have to do collectively.

453

I used qualified to also cover individuals who are not prohibited from possessing or purchasing a gun, but are not in their home state, so are not allowed to purchase one. Maybe that wasn’t the best word.

And in any case, the gun control that I would advocate for would require qualifications for guns with more lethal power.

If you are in good legal standing in Switzerland, then there is nothing to stop you from getting a gun. IT is a bit of red tape, and bureaucracy involved, but you can get it. A CCW is a bit harder to get, but I consider that a bonus.

They may fail, but they fail much, much, much less often than we do. Perfection is the enemy of the good. There is no gun control policy that will eliminate criminals getting guns, but there are some that will drastically reduce it.

Right, which is why I say often on these boards that 2A needs to go, and as long as the gun advocates keep putting 2A up a shield against restrictions, 2A becomes less and less popular with the public.

You mentioned earlier that we should have done something different 60 years ago, but I wasn’t even alive then, so I’m not sure how I could have managed that. I can only work with what we have. You indicated that 2A is becoming more popular because of the pushback against gun regulations, but I don’t really see that. The percent of households that own a gun is not increasing, that is still decreasing. It is only that a small number of gun owners are increasing their number of guns in reaction to perceived threats that only exist due to the media that they choose to consume telling them that there are threats.

I only brought up Switzerland because DrDeth kept demanding that I give him an example of a gun control policy that would have a positive effect on dealing with gun violence, and I didn’t feel like typing up my proposal yet again.

This thread, however, is not about purchase or possession, but about carrying in public.

454

Indeed, you are correct becuase that is all a “assault weapons ban” does- ban cosmetic features, since there is no such thing as a “assault weapon”, so all they can ban is the cosmetic features. They could ban a gun by name, but there are so many copycats.

Yes, we have, In CA, and in some other states, all gun sales must go thru a registered dealer. It’s not doing anything.

Sure, because all other nations arent the USA, and about half have less murder rates and about half have higher murder rates.

You’re right we can’t. And no gun law ever proposed can do those things. No gun law in any other nation can do those things.

455

Right, and it was a bill that was written because there was intense public pressure on congress to do something, so congress tried to do something, and got a bill that was watered down because of republican ties to the gun lobby.

It is not the fault of the people who advocated for and pushed for a bill to reduce gun violence that it wasn’t a bill that could accomplish that, but the fault of the people who fought tooth and nail against it.

That’s because they can just go to one of the many states that does not have that law. That is what I keep saying, there needs to be a national law that makes it illegal to transfer your gun to unknown or ineligible people. State laws that restrict transfers like that are ineffective unless we start allowing searches at state borders like we do internationally, and that would probably not pass constitutional muster.

But, as you have claimed that the ability for people to legally profit off of selling guns to the black market to get into the hands of criminals is actually the intent of the republican legislators, I can see how this is an uphill fight. I had thought that both parties agreed that keeping guns out of hands of criminals was a good thing, even if they disagreed on how. Now you say that that is not true, and it is the intent of the republicans to get guns into the hands of criminals, that does change the dynamics, that’s a completely different fight than I thought that we were up against.

Ah, USA, dead center! Go, go mediocrity! The countries you compare us to that have higher murder rates are also the ones that have pretty much ineffective law enforcement in some or most of their country. Do we want to emulate the countries that have higher violence, or less?

You see the perfect as the enemy of the good? Unless a gun control policy completely eliminates all gun violence, its worthless? There are measures that would significantly reduce the potential for these incidents to occur, even if they don’t absolutely remove them. Is that not a good thing?

456

Part of the reason for the bill was simply to break the wall of resistance to doing anything - often, it doesn’t matter where you start, only *that *you start. It was never intended to be a complete and final solution to the problem, only to show that progress is possible, and that the gun lobby has been on the wrong side of both morality and history and needs to become responsible.

457

The cosmetic features *are *significant in that they’re a large part of what lets their owners indulge their Red Dawn fantasies (if you’re actually mounting a bayonet on your semiauto, you’re not in a position to claim you’re doing anything else :rolleyes: And if you’re not doing that, why do you even care about it? ). Without them, the visceral attraction of ownership and use might dissipate somewhat - and that might lead to fewer of the damn things being out there.

It’s as if these people use it as a synonym for “gun owner”.

It’s also relevant that the primary source of guns in Mexico is smuggling from the US. Just like with Indiana and Chicago, they come from the place next door where they’re easy to get. Russia, I don’t know about, but their army’s inventory control, especially with the breakup of the USSR, is notoriously lax and the country has a notorious black market.

Do you know how *not *to claim that any sort of restriction is a “ban”? :dubious:

It really isn’t debatable either, just uncomfortable for some to face up to.

458

I claimed nothing of the sort. What I said is that the ATF doesnt see it as a significant issue.

Less violence is good. But I’d rather not give up liberties for a little possible security.

Well, you see, that’s where we differ. I dont think there* are* measures that would significantly reduce the potential for these incidents to occur.

459

The ability for someone to legally sell a gun into the black market is either an unintentional side effect of the laws, making it a loophole, or it is intentional by the lawmakers who prevent it from being closed. Which is it? The ATF absolutely sees it as a significant issue, they are just limited in what they can do because of the laws that the pro-gun lobby pushes for.

I don’t think that you have to,unless you feel that your liberties are infringed by not being able to transfer guns to criminals.

I guess we’ll have to disagree there that fewer guns in the hands of criminals would reduce the amount of gun crime, that having higher standards for public carry would reduce the number of accidents. We can go with common sense there, we can even look at data from countries that have implemented gun control, or we can go with your gut feeling that somehow or other, the number of guns in the hands of irresponsible and ineligible people will not reduce the amount of gun violence and accidents.

460

I disagree with your idea it has to be one or the other. Nor have I seen the ATF push to “close the loophole”. They could do so RIGHT NOW, to a large extent if they so choose. They do not choose to do so.

No, my liberties are infringed by only being able to sell a gun to or thru a gun store, which is very costly. No one thinks you should be allowed to sell guns to criminals.

We *can *look at other nations, and in a few nations it might have worked and in others it has clearly failed. What is “common sense” to you is nonsense to me.

However, states with open carry do not have a issue with violent crime.