# Save the guns law: What's the point? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 4, 2013, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016 "2013-09-04T19:15:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/201 "2013-09-17T15:26:38Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > I will admit that there are some points of Constitutional law which are not entirely clear, and that there is a need for a process to sort out the details and priorities; and that judges are an important part of that process. > > But the right to keep and bear arms is not one of these areas. The Constitution could not possibly be any more clear about it than it is. It affirms a right of the people, and it explicitly forbids this right from being infringed. Period. So good of you to clear this up, perhaps you should write a letter to the Supreme Court. You know, because they are doing it wrong. Unfortunately your opinion on the matter is worth as much as mine. You understand that your interpretation would allow the mentally ill, 4 year olds, current prisoners of the state, and foreign invaders the right to keep and bear arms, right? Are you okay with that? I’m not. > [@](#): > > That various state and federal laws have been enacted which infringe upon this right, and that these laws have been upheld by the courts, only goes to prove the truth of the objection and the warning that Jefferson gave here. Yes - courts can make bad decisions. Your solution is to do what? > [@](#): > > To disobey it [the constitution] by passing, upholding, or enforcing a law which is unconstitutional is illegitimate. You still haven’t defined how you are using the term ‘illegitimate’. Can you define how you are using it, without using that word? What is the consequence of doing something that is illegitimate? Is that like being uncouth? Are they subject to ridicule? I’m not following to what end determining something to be illegitimate serves. > [@](#): > > Alas, I live in one of the very worst states of all, California. Cross your fingers for Peruta v. County of San Diego, Richards v. Prieto, and Woolard. Those are the folks working within the system. > [@](#): > > The Constitution is the highest of all law. To work against it—or to surrender to those who do so—is not to work within the law. > > Those who have had a part in enacting and enforcing gun control policies have already gone outside the law. Why is it my side that must work _“within the law”_, while the opposing side is allowed to violate the law with impunity? What is your alternative? Foolish rants not based in reality that have no persuasive value? Gun rights advocates will not win or persuade others if their arguments are grounded in 2nd amendment absolutism. Heller, McDonald, and Moore were won by working within the legal system. Those are actual results. What could you possibly gain by alienating everyone who does not already agree with you? This is not a winning strategey. As many in CA who are involved with the litigation of these issues say, this is chess not checkers. We’ve had threads before when Kachalsky was up for cert and many people in favor of strict gun control agreed that discretionary issue was not consistent with equal protection. Gun rights as a civil right is a winning issue. Incrementalism works within the court system. Shouting that congress people should be in prison and are disobeying the constitution gets you absolutely nowhere. Feel free to continue but like I said before, you make my side look bad. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/202 "2013-09-17T15:49:32Z")
The Second Amendment, in two clauses bearing no very clear relationship to each other, is really the most **ambiguous** element of the Constitution. **Blaylock** seems to think it is the least. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/203 "2013-09-17T16:21:27Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The Second Amendment, in two clauses bearing no very clear relationship to each other, is really the most **ambiguous** element of the Constitution. **Blaylock** seems to think it is the least. Given a fair reading, I think Heller pretty clearly resolved much of the ambiguity. There are things that Heller did not address that will be and is being litigated. Further analysis in Moore and in the recent case [People v. Aguilar](http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2013/112116.pdf) are a step in this clarification. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/204 "2013-09-17T16:57:06Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Given a fair reading, I think Heller pretty clearly resolved much of the ambiguity. There are things that Heller did not address that will be and is being litigated. > Further analysis in Moore and in the recent case [People v. Aguilar](http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2013/112116.pdf) are a step in this clarification. But that all took, and takes, interpretations of the 2nd Amendment by court decisions. **Blaylock** seems to think the courts have no business even discussing it, beyond the minimum necessary to strike down any and all gun-control legislation. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/205 "2013-09-17T19:16:38Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 Mexicans who stay in Mexico can vote there (if otherwise eligible). They might even be able to vote absentee from abroad, IDK. Sorry, I had just watched Elysium and illegal aliens and the franchise were at the forefront of my mind. I now see that pkbites might have meant the Mexican citizen’s right to try and affect the horrible gun laws in Mexico where only criminals seem to be well armed despite very strict gun regulations. > [@](#): > > Same thing as silencers? Its not an accurate word but yes, we’re talking about the same thing. I’d just like to point out that they don’t actually silence the shot because most rounds have a sonic boom that a suppressor will not silence. The only way to approach the level of suppression you see in the movies is to have subsonic 22lr rounds. Rifles are several times the speed of sound. I’ve seen subsonic rounds in .45 acp and seem too loud to be effectively “silenced” they can just be suppressed enough that you can fire them indoors without blowing out your eardrums. > [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > The Second Amendment reads… > > _“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.”_ > > Factually, objectively, Any law, or any other public policy, which infringes in any way upon this right, violates this Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. Wow, you’re like the Elvis\_lives of the gun rights side. Your positions are more than a little bit extreme and are demostrably incorrect. No right is absolute. The first amendment is at least as clear as the second amendment and we have all sorts of abridgements of the first amendment right. > [@](#): > > The approach of bending over, dropping one’s pants, and letting the gungrabbers have their way with us, and hoping each time that they’ll be satisfied just to do to us what they will do on each one occasion, and then let us be after that; is what has not been effective. We’ve allowed them to corrupt our government to the point that it is now nearly impossible, in most places, for a law-abiding citizen to reasonably and legitimately exercise his right to keep and bear arms, without being subject to arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment. We’ve allowed this right to be mostly taken from us, one “reasonable restriction” at a time, until we have reached this point. Knowing that you live in California, I feel your pain. I lived in LA for a while and the only people with guns were cops and robbers, sometimes you couldn’t really tell which group you wanted to run into in a dark alley. The sort of things that can happen at the state level in California simply cannot happen at the federal level. You simply cannot get enough senators to pull that off. > [@pkbites](#): > > The same way they made other infringements reality, through patients and incrementalism. You’re making dangerous assumptions if you think the gun control proponents are going to continue losing. I don’t think they’ll keep losing forever but they are going to keep losing for a while, at least in the courts. I don’t think they will ever have the sort of victory they dream of at the federal level. You simply cannot get that sort of legislation past the senate… EVER!!! The AWB of 1994 was probably then high water mark of gun regulations. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > They aren’t all scrap. And even junk guns are still capable of being deadly. What, did you think it’s a purely economic transaction? To the people turning in the guns it is, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > Aaron Alexis had a CCW. Do you seriously think there will be no consequences? Yeah I don’t think you’re going to make a lot of hay over that. Newotwn was different. It was a unique opportunity to get some meaningful gun regulation and instead you guts went for an ineffective AWB. There was one silver lining in Newtown. The Republicans stopped trying to portray teachers as parasites that put their own financial interests ahead of the welfare of the children. And all it took was teachers practically throwing themselves in front of bullets to try and protect their tiny little students to get the Republicans to reconsider whether teachers were bloodsucking leeches. > [@](#): > > “We”? Will you now quit the tiresome pretense that you support them, or indeed any fucking thing else? :dubious: Listen, I am firmly on then pro-gun side (although some of my fellow gun nuts might disagree). However, I support reasonable gun regulations (and some of my fellow gun nuts don’t consider quite so reasonable) [gun grabbers and gun nuts: Would you take this grand bargain on guns? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=689653). We should really keep these sort of accusations in the pit. I don’t know if you’re accusing me of trolling or lying but you are accusing me of believing something other than what I post. > [@](#): > > That’s been cited much more solidly than anything \*you \*have ever posted on guns. :rolleyes: Really? please cite. Its clear that gun control in the past was largely used to suppress minorities by taking away their ability to defend themselves from outfits like the Ku Klux Klan (although we seem to disagree about reasons for the Gun Control Act of 1968). You seem to have fallen victim to an article by a talk radio host [http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified%20-to-preserve-slavery](http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified%20-to-preserve-slavery) that has been thoroughly debunked by an anti-gun historian [http://www.theroot.com/views/2nd-amendment-passed-protect-slavery-no](http://www.theroot.com/views/2nd-amendment-passed-protect-slavery-no) > [@Human\_Action](#): > > President Lyndon Johnson was a staunch [gun control advocate,](http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-16/opinions/35863805_1_gun-control-gun-bill-gun-lobby) and a driving force behind the Gun Control Act. Read his remarks [upon signing the GCA](http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29197), you’ll recognize the gun control talking points that are still in use today. I’ve quoted the Washington Post article several times in favor of liecnsing and registration but I don’t think that LBJ had a history of gun control advocacy before the kennedy assassination. Did he? > [@](#): > > The National Council to Control Handguns, which is now the Brady Campaign, was founded in 1974. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns, which is now the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, was also founded in 1974. The gun control side has basically surrendered their efforts to ban handguns (which are used in most gun murders) and have resigned themselves to trying to address the less than 3% of gun mruders committed by rifles (of which assault weapons are a small subset). > [@](#): > > That environment is what led to the Cincinnati Revolt, and Harlon Carter’s New Guard taking over the NRA in 1977. The NFA of 1934 was not involved. They then changed the rules so that another revolt could not occur. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/206 "2013-09-17T19:44:32Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > They then changed the rules so that another revolt could not occur. What other revolt might occur? is there some backroom machinations going on to revert the NRA to a conservation organization and abandon it’s political arm and defense of the RKBA? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/207 "2013-09-17T19:59:24Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’ve quoted the Washington Post article several times in favor of liecnsing and registration but I don’t think that LBJ had a history of gun control advocacy before the kennedy assassination. Did he? Not that I have been able to find. I’ve only been able to find information about his gun control advocacy as President (such as a [letter to Congress after the Charles Whitman shootings](http://www.takepart.com/article/2010/09/15/september-15-1966-lbj-appeals-gun-control), or his first [appeal to Congress for a gun control law (which ultimately became the GCA) in March 1965](http://books.google.com/books?id=VvNb5s8Z3b0C&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=Lyndon+Johnson+gun+control&source=bl&ots=JOpSNTOBL2&sig=N2r2ytEjSt-EDFcKZ3H49L_XRw0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MbE4UuiSFrGgyAHQ64CACg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCTgU#v=onepage&q=Lyndon%20Johnson%20gun%20control&f=false)), which are obviously post-Kennedy assassination, though pre-Robert Kennedy and MLK assassinations, which helped get the GCA passed. Also, from _The Changing Politics of Gun Control_ the second linked source above: > [@](#): > > After three decades of relative quiet on the gun control front, a new wave of demand for a stronger federal role swelled in the 1960s. This demand was fueled by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963; the urban riots beginning in 1964; and the murders of Martin Luther King in Memphis on April 4 and Robert F. Kennedy in San Francisco on June 6, 1968. The House of Representatives passed an omnibus crime bill containing gun control provisions the day after Robert Kennedy was assassinated, and a few weeks later, with the tide in favor of stricter federal firearms regulations, Congress enacted the Gun Control Act of 1968. [QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi] The gun control side has basically surrendered their efforts to ban handguns (which are used in most gun murders) and have resigned themselves to trying to address the less than 3% of gun mruders committed by rifles (of which assault weapons are a small subset). [/quote] I think expanded background checks or a registration scheme are more productive avenues, and remain equally puzzled by the fixation on semi-automatic rifles. > [@Damuri Ajashi](#): > > They then changed the rules so that another revolt could not occur. Can you expand on that? I was unaware of this. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Blaylock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_blaylock/32/3235_2.png) [@Bob\_Blaylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Blaylock)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/208 "2013-09-17T23:35:54Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You still haven’t defined how you are using the term ‘illegitimate’. If you can’t understand a simple, common English word, being used in proper context, then I cannot help you there. > [@Bone](#): > > Incrementalism works within the court system. That’s how we’ve lost as much as we have of our right to keep and bear arms, through incrementalism. The legislature passes “reasonable” new restrictions, and get the courts to go along with them. We’re at a point, now, that nobody would have dared to claim as “reasonable” a hundred years ago. But as every new step fails to produce the result that it was claimed to be intended to produce, we get a new step, stripping away the right just a little bit more, with the promise that this time, it will make us safer. And, as with every previous step, it only has the opposite effect. Surely, you’ve heard the cliché that defines insanity as doing what has been done before, and expecting a different result. I think the cliché applies equally to gun control itself, and to going along with those who will employ incrementalism to strip of of our rights a little at a time. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Blaylock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_blaylock/32/3235_2.png) [@Bob\_Blaylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Blaylock)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/209 "2013-09-17T23:37:18Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The Second Amendment, in two clauses bearing no very clear relationship to each other, is really the most **ambiguous** element of the Constitution. **Blaylock** seems to think it is the least. It is only “ambiguous”, or otherwise in any way “unclear”, to those who do not agree with it, and who wish for it to be disobeyed. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2013, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/210 "2013-09-18T00:18:54Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > If you can’t understand a simple, common English word, being used in proper context, then I cannot help you there. try to define it in a way that makes sense based on how you are using it. I challenge you. You can’t do it in a way that isn’t tautological. Seriously. Define the term and explain how legislators are acting illegitimately. > [@](#): > > That’s how we’ve lost as much as we have of our right to keep and bear arms, through incrementalism. The legislature passes “reasonable” new restrictions, and get the courts to go along with them. We’re at a point, now, that nobody would have dared to claim as “reasonable” a hundred years ago. But as every new step fails to produce the result that it was claimed to be intended to produce, we get a new step, stripping away the right just a little bit more, with the promise that this time, it will make us safer. And, as with every previous step, it only has the opposite effect. at this point I’m not sure if you are a robot or a parrot. This has nothing to do with what you are responding to. Incrementalism in the courts works and is working in favor of gun rights. See Heller, McDonald, and Moore. That approach is successful. Yours is not. Is the point to expand gun rights or to shout other people down? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016.md?page=10)