Keyword there is ‘essential’. Is it essential that every American have the right to carry a flamethower? Reasonable minds may disagree.
What makes ‘essential’ the key word?
Is it essential that every american have right to freedom of speech? Reasonable minds may disagree.
There are legal prohibitions on some speech. Why can’t there be legal prohibitions on some guns?
Gun nutters and TP conservatives operate from a basis of fear, paranoia and worship of long-dead progressives and liberals. You all have no business co-opting the words and thoughts of honorable people.
And interestingly, “we people” in other countries do indeed have internet access, freedom of speech, freedom to travel to other countries (even ones like Cuba!), freedom to own many, many types of firearms, freedom of the press, etc.
The only horrible, horrible things we also have are compassion for our fellow citizens, (OMG SOCIALISM! EVIL!) and a desire to see dangerous objects such as guns subject to reasonable regulations.
The end result is far, far fewer gun related homicides, suicides and accidents. And pretty much all of “we people” are just fine with that.
For some folks it seems that “the rest of the world” is exactly equivalent to North Korea. That’s the dichotomy that they see: Freedom USA versus North Korea. No middle ground, no reasonable compromise.
BLACK or WHITE. And that’s why reasonable discourse is pointless.
Limits to speech? Heck lets ban pornography and bad mouthing the 2nd Amendment then. Or we could turn that right into a privilege. You have any problems with that?
We already have limits on speech, and it did not cause the Republic to fall. Neither will limits on guns.
It’s true that allowing guns sometimes gives you a Switzerland and sometimes a Beirut. It’s equally true that banning guns sometimes gives you a Britain and sometimes gives you a Mexico. We’ve debated in other threads what makes the difference. What I am sure of is that banning guns will not make a formerly violent country peaceful. And the USA does truly seem to have a per-capita violence problem that western Europe simply does not.
The “Exceptionalism” argument has never been that powerful for me.
I don’t believe that the United States is an inherently violent place, and that it’s people have a violence problem that is simply a part of the nation and culture.
In terms of Mexico and Beirut? I’d argue that gun violence in these countries is partly a result of poor to non-existent enforcement and/or very easy access to guns directly from other nearby countries where they are readily available.
Spoken like the king of England.
“Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.” — Ben Franklin
Yes, but do you really believe that a “gun culture” is responsible for the prevalence of violence in the US? That eliminate guns and in a generation Americans will become pacifists? Because that seems to be the unstated premise many gun-control advocates hold; and to gun rights advocates it smacks of pure voodoo, or an incredibly naïve attempt at social engineering.
If you say so.
Just lazy. http://www.theonion.com/articles/marxists-apartment-a-microcosm-of-why-marxism-does,1382/
We got reasonable regulations already.
Compromise? What’s your side willing to concede?
Oh yeah, you gun-grabbers want only one sided concessions, and anyone you get is just the starting point for more. Us real freedom enthusiasts know that game already.
We already have limits on guns. Limits are great right? So why not a few more on the First Amendment, and all the rest while were at it?
In terms of Switzerland?
I just don’t understand why gun grabbers who have trouble distinguishing between an AR-15 and nukes think that gun nuts have the same problem.
Is the word essential there to carve out a subset of liberties or to describe liberties?
Of course there can be limits. However, you generally need to justify limiting constitutional rights.
Right now the important unanswered legal question is what “standard of review” do we apply to the second amendment. If we apply anything greater than reasonable basis, then I think a lot of gun laws go “poof” and we don’t get very many new ones until you amend the constitution (although I think licensing and registration could pass constitutional muster under almost any level of review).
There’s not a lot of things that will cause the republic to fall but once you start ignoring the constitution, then it can.
Physical force is one of the basic building blocks of power.
Well, there is some evidence that we would reduce suicides (but probably at the cost of rapes, robberies and murders, at least in the short term).
Some of them want strict standards applied to rules that would limit speech, but they’re willing to adopt pretty much any harebrained rules that limits the second amendment.
I still don’t understand how anyone can so much reverence for the constitutional right to an abortion and feel free to ignore a right that is actually written in the constitution.
Well the prevalence of guns is definitely the cause of gun violence.
But it’s a bit much to expect any nation to become pacifists, and you’re excluding a LOT of middle ground.
I’m not American, and have never been there - but a few things that occur to me…
- I can never understand the focus on “long guns” in gun debate - the real problem with gun violence in the US is from handguns.
- If you really want to take the “well armed militia” argument of the 2nd Amendment, then long guns are the most useful, and handguns the least
- If it were me, I’d be focussing on limiting handguns, and not worry so much about hunting rifles and the like.
- From all the studies that I have seen, there is nothing that leads me to believe there is a net benefit when you compare accidental deaths from handguns to lives saved from successful defensive gun use - and this is before you even add in the crime that is enabled by the easy prevalence of guns.
I don’t know about that. Most studies I have seen looking at gun violence also found a pretty high association with drugs, alcohol, etc.
There’s a good amount of truth in all that. However, gun grabbers already lost the fight with regards to handguns decades ago…
…and are so far from winning now that they have given up on the frontal assault:
So now they are going or the sneak attack. “Assault weapons” even though statistically meaningless with regards to gun violence are thought by gun grabbers to be the low hanging fruit. They want to ban some guns, any guns, to get their foot in the door, so they can get their real prize, handguns, later. And if you can ban handguns, they figure they can ban all guns. Those gun grabbers who want to stop short of the ultimate goal are just stooges of those that want to go all the way.
Handguns are the firearms of choice for carrying day to day in all but the highest-security situations. That’s why you don’t see police routinely carrying submachine guns. It’s the difference between carrying a knife and carrying a sword.
Whenever I hear quotes like this, I like to look them up to see what context might had been the inspiration for the author of the quote. For this particular quote, there is some question whether Franklin was the author. It comes from "An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania and was written in 1757 by an Englishman by the name of Richard Jackson. Franklin seemed to like the book - and maybe the quote - and had 500 copies shipped to Philadelphia but most of them were distributed after his death. Hereis the research one fellow has done.
OK, so according to your cite, Franklin most likely said it like this:
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
I see no reason to contest it.