Supreme Court / Right to Keep & Bear Arms

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=Bricker]
A reasonable reading of …they have argued that ex-convicts should have all their gun ownership rights restored - even if they were convicted of using a gun in the commission of a felony… doesn’t remotely suggest “some.” It suggests that the NRA favors an automatic restoration of rights after a sentence is served, especially when combined with the first claim, which you concede was over-the-top wrong.

Give that sentence to ten people and ask them if it means all convicts, and you’ll get nine ‘yes’ answers.
[/QUOTE]
Given a reasonable reading of that FAQ cite and your own post about their stance, I’m betting that 9 out of 10 people would say that the NRA would never argue for a felon to regain gun ownership privileges, especially when combined with the first of the two sentences in the FAQ cite that you posted.

82

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Actually, I said the NRA agreed that prisoners should not own guns, which I assume is their genuine position. But yes, I did intend this part as irony.And I’m standing by this one.

Bricker, you seem to feel there’s a substantial difference between “they have argued that ex-convicts should have all their gun ownership rights restored - even if they were convicted of using a gun in the commission of a felony” and “extended relief privileges to those who had been convicted of crimes involving a firearm.” I don’t see it. What is the difference you’ve referred to?
[/QUOTE]

“Relief privileges” means that the felon in question may apply, may ASK, for his privileges to be restored. It’s not an automatic process. What they wish to avoid is a situation where, once a felony conviction has been entered, there is no way to ever restore gun rights. But they don’t seek an automatic restoration; the felon must show good cause.

Your sentence reads as though they support an automatic, all-hands-served restoration.

83

[QUOTE=DMC]
Given a reasonable reading of that FAQ cite and your own post about their stance, I’m betting that 9 out of 10 people would say that the NRA would never argue for a felon to regain gun ownership privileges, especially when combined with the first of the two sentences in the FAQ cite that you posted.
[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, and I agree. I too should have been more careful to explain the details.

84

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Actually, while I certainly understand your desire to reframe the question to your advantage, I would say that this thread is about the meaning and effect of the Second Amendment – which makes the method of interpreting other amendments a valid question. Ifyou choose to apply a hyper-technical, limiting approach when reading the Second Amendment, and an overly expansive approach when reading other amendments, I may fairly conclude that your method of interpretation is chosen solely to produce the result you wish.
[/QUOTE]
It would not be wise to assume how I would interpret the other amendments-in all likelihood your assumptions would be wrong. BTW, I am not trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment using a “hyper-technical, limiting approach”-I am trying to nail down the specifics on how others are interpreting it. I cannot know whether or how to argue a point until I know exactly what it is I am arguing for or against.

85

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Of the above, only one is guaranteed in the Constitution. That’s what makes it special.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but should it be special? I’d vote to repeal or rework the 2nd amendment.

86

[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Those are ordnance. Generally. (It is possible to use a pistol as an anti-tank weapon. Especially against one of those riveted 1918 french tanks)
[/QUOTE]
So what is your definition of arms?

87

[QUOTE=DanBlather]
Yes, but should it be special? I’d vote to repeal or rework the 2nd amendment.
[/QUOTE]
But the Founders of our blessed country were inspired geniuses, and we shouldn’t add to or subtract from what they wrote in the Constitution, right? Next thing you know, some asshole will try to amend it, for ghod’s sake!

88

[QUOTE=DanBlather]
Yes, but should it be special?
[/quote]

Obviously. Had it not been the case they would have long ago been banned.

And that is why I’m glad it’s in there. Even if it is interpreted beyond anything that was ever envisioned by the people that wrote it, the mere fact of its existence is what keeps you and people like you from enabling the police to go door to door rounding them up.

89

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
But the Founders of our blessed country were inspired geniuses, and we shouldn’t add to or subtract from what they wrote in the Constitution, right? Next thing you know, some asshole will try to amend it, for ghod’s sake!
[/QUOTE]

Let’s talk about that for a minute, shall we?

Ratification of the Constitution was difficult - and one of the reasons this was so was that an explicit enumeration of the rights of citizens wasn’t immediately included. States were assured that this would be addressed, and the Bill of Rights soon followed.

Now, these amendments were bundled together, the only time in our history when this was done.

You wish to discuss freedom of the press separately from Second Amendment rights, which may be fine for purposes of discussion. However, in our history these issues were debated contemporaneously and ratified together, and I don’t really think you can understand one without the other.

90

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Let’s talk about that for a minute, shall we?

Ratification of the Constitution was difficult - and one of the reasons this was so was that an explicit enumeration of the rights of citizens wasn’t immediately included. States were assured that this would be addressed, and the Bill of Rights soon followed.

Now, these amendments were bundled together, the only time in our history when this was done.

You wish to discuss freedom of the press separately from Second Amendment rights, which may be fine for purposes of discussion. However, in our history these issues were debated contemporaneously and ratified together, and I don’t really think you can understand one without the other.
[/QUOTE]
So you disapprove of all amendments made after the initial bundle was ratified?

91

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
So you disapprove of all amendments made after the initial bundle was ratified?
[/QUOTE]

Who said that? No, he was addressing the idea that by analyzing the rights of one amendment we can shed light on another, something you dismissed as off-topic earlier.

If you guys think that you can get enough people to amend the 2nd Amendment, have at it. As I say in every thread when this sort of thing comes up, I will abide by the law. But I also say that there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that it will ever happen, so the point is moot.

92

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Who said that? No, he was addressing the idea that by analyzing the rights of one amendment we can shed light on another, something you dismissed as off-topic earlier.

If you guys think that you can get enough people to amend the 2nd Amendment, have at it. As I say in every thread when this sort of thing comes up, I will abide by the law. But I also say that there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that it will ever happen, so the point is moot.
[/QUOTE]
I just think focusing the conversation on one amendment at a time will prevent it from getting out of hand.

93

[QUOTE=Bricker]
But you don’t, I assume, read other amendments that way. I imagine you would argue that the First Amendment protects webpages and bloggers, even though they reach farther and are read by more people than any “press” in 1787 was.

What’s the legal rationale for reading the Second Amendment so restrictively and the First Amendment so expansively? Your personal dispproval of one and approval of the other?
[/QUOTE]

Both the First and the Second Amendment were designed to promote the well-being of the populace. The conditions that made the First Amendment desirable still apply. The conditions that promoted the Second Amendment don’t (subsistence hunting, lack of police, self-equipped civilian army…).

In any case, if the men who wrote the Bill of Rights had been familiar with modern firearms in all their death-dealing glory, I think the Second Amendment would be substantially differently phrased. There is no comparison between a muzzle-loading flintlock and anything you will find in the current military armory.

JRB

94

[QUOTE=JR Brown]
Both the First and the Second Amendment were designed to promote the well-being of the populace. The conditions that made the First Amendment desirable still apply. The conditions that promoted the Second Amendment don’t (subsistence hunting, lack of police, self-equipped civilian army…).

In any case, if the men who wrote the Bill of Rights had been familiar with modern firearms in all their death-dealing glory, I think the Second Amendment would be substantially differently phrased. There is no comparison between a muzzle-loading flintlock and anything you will find in the current military armory.

JRB
[/QUOTE]

And yet 600,000+ people died in the Civil War with what were for the most part little more than muskets and cannons, things that existed during Revolutionary times. For the record, that is more than we have lost in all the wars since, combined.

Don’t think for a second that they didn’t realize the potential of weaponry. A large number of them fought in the war, and even those that didn’t got a good look at what havoc they had wrought. Yet they still included it in the Constitution.

If you want to try to get rid of it, propose a repeal. But dammit, otherwise have some personal integrity and quit being disingenuous.

95

[QUOTE=JR Brown]
Both the First and the Second Amendment were designed to promote the well-being of the populace. The conditions that made the First Amendment desirable still apply. The conditions that promoted the Second Amendment don’t (subsistence hunting, lack of police, self-equipped civilian army…).

In any case, if the men who wrote the Bill of Rights had been familiar with modern firearms in all their death-dealing glory, I think the Second Amendment would be substantially differently phrased. There is no comparison between a muzzle-loading flintlock and anything you will find in the current military armory.

JRB
[/QUOTE]

The conditions very much still apply. An armed populace is much harder to tyrannize than an unarmed one. The citizen militia is by no means outdated - it is still defined by law to include every able-bodied male aged 17 through 45. The only way it is “out of date” is that it lacks gender equality. :wink:

That idea comes mainly from anti-gun propaganda, but even if it were true, it’s every individual’s decision whether they want to keep a gun in their home: not yours, and not the government’s. If you don’t think you would be capable of keeping a gun safely in your home, that’s your call. But from my view the cost-benefit analysis is very different: I am quite capable of handling and storing my guns safely, and the benefits of self-defense and sport shooting quite outweigh the small risk that I will someday make an incredibly bone-headed mistake and shoot myself. I’m far, far more likely to kill myself or my loved ones with my car.

Just the fact that you think I don’t “need” something doesn’t establish any reason or authority to ban it. I don’t think anybody “needs” to consume alcoholic beverages, and those (in conjunction with fast cars, which are also unnecessary) kill more people than firearms do in this country - shall we ban the booze (again)?

Airman Doors, even some proposed amendment to nullify the second would not remove the individual’s right to bear arms, and any legislation banning private possession would still violate the tenth amendment! Even if one goes further, just because by whatever passes for due process a government pretends to strip away rights from its citizens, does that mean those citizens no longer have those rights? I am not a big believer in Natural Rights (being myself one of those godless liberals Ann Coulter always goes on about), but I do think that the right of free expression and the right to be armed are among those basic human rights that should always be fought for.

96

I feel you misread my post then. I wrote “they have argued that ex-convicts should have all their gun ownership rights restored” not “they have argued that all ex-convicts should have all their gun ownership rights restored”. I think we’d agree that the NRA favors an expansion in the restoration of gun ownership rights to ex-convicts.

97

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
And yet 600,000+ people died in the Civil War with what were for the most part little more than muskets and cannons, things that existed during Revolutionary times. For the record, that is more than we have lost in all the wars since, combined.

Don’t think for a second that they didn’t realize the potential of weaponry. A large number of them fought in the war, and even those that didn’t got a good look at what havoc they had wrought. Yet they still included it in the Constitution.

If you want to try to get rid of it, propose a repeal. But dammit, otherwise have some personal integrity and quit being disingenuous.
[/QUOTE]

Where am I being disingenuous? I am sure that pretty much every adult male in the (proto-)US in 1787 had a fairly good idea of what kind of damage you could do to a person with a musket. I doubt that any of them would have imagined what one nutcase can do with a M60 and a crowded street.

And only about 200,000 people died in the Civil War because of “muskets and cannons”; the other two-thirds mainly died of assorted now-preventable diseases. Shall I accuse you of being disingenuous?

JRB

98

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I feel you misread my post then. I wrote “they have argued that ex-convicts should have all their gun ownership rights restored” not “they have argued that all ex-convicts should have all their gun ownership rights restored”. I think we’d agree that the NRA favors an expansion in the restoration of gun ownership rights to ex-convicts.
[/QUOTE]

Well, yes. And what’s wrong with that? Anybody who has had any of their rights suspended because of a conviction should be able, in the fullness of time and provided they demonstrate rehabilitation, to have their rights restored. Not building a system for appeal and relief into the system (or refusing to fund such relief as is provided by law, as Congress is now doing) is simply unreasonable.

99

[QUOTE=Stealth Potato]
An armed populace is much harder to tyrannize than an unarmed one.
[/QUOTE]

This was evidently true in 1787. Do you have any evidence that this is in fact true for a modern democracy? Furthermore, do you really feel that a) there is a significant likelihood that the US will come under a “tyrannical” government, under conditions where we as a country are unable to do anything about it until said tyranny is established, and b) the best thing to do in that case will be to call all your gun-owning buddies and go out and start shooting people (or threatening to do so)?

[QUOTE=Stealth Potato]
That idea comes mainly from anti-gun propaganda, but even if it were true, it’s every individual’s decision whether they want to keep a gun in their home: not yours, and not the government’s. If you don’t think you would be capable of keeping a gun safely in your home, that’s your call. But from my view the cost-benefit analysis is very different: I am quite capable of handling and storing my guns safely, and the benefits of self-defense and sport shooting quite outweigh the small risk that I will someday make an incredibly bone-headed mistake and shoot myself. I’m far, far more likely to kill myself or my loved ones with my car.
[/QUOTE]

As far as I understand it, it isn’t so much the risk that you will accidentally shoot yourself so much as the risk that you or someone in your household will, in a state of anger or impaired reason, deliberately shoot a relative, friend or neighbor whom you might otherwise have merely beaned on the head with a beer bottle.

[QUOTE=Stealth Potato]
Just the fact that you think I don’t “need” something doesn’t establish any reason or authority to ban it. I don’t think anybody “needs” to consume alcoholic beverages, and those (in conjunction with fast cars, which are also unnecessary) kill more people than firearms do in this country - shall we ban the booze (again)?
[/QUOTE]

Well, when you get right down to it, guns are tools, intended to achieve a defined purpose. Cars and alcohol, although quite good at causing death both severally and together, have other primary purposes of which their lethal effects are unintended consequences.

Excepting the ones made specifically for target shooting, there are two basic purposes for guns:

  1. to injure or kill animals
  2. to injure or kill people

(even if you have a gun solely as a deterrent, to be effective it must have the capability of inflicting death and / or injury)

I am of the opinion that both of these activities should be subject to regulation. I am also of the opinion that the majority of Americans believe that these activities should be subject to regulation. You also probably believe both of these things (if you don’t, then I definitely don’t want you to have access to any kinds of weapons).

So for the 3rd time, if you have a purpose that requires not merely a gun but a type of gun that is currently illegal or prohibitively regulated, tell me what that purpose is and I’ll consider your argument. But saying “I want it and you have no right to prevent me from having it” is not enough in this case.

That also goes for radioisotopes, botulism toxin, surgical anesthetics and mustard gas.

JRB

100

[QUOTE=JR Brown]
This was evidently true in 1787. Do you have any evidence that this is in fact true for a modern democracy? Furthermore, do you really feel that a) there is a significant likelihood that the US will come under a “tyrannical” government, under conditions where we as a country are unable to do anything about it until said tyranny is established, and b) the best thing to do in that case will be to call all your gun-owning buddies and go out and start shooting people (or threatening to do so)?
[/quote]

You honestly don’t see how it is easier to for tyranny to exist when the people are disarmed and the government employs a large standing army? Yes, I certainly do believe that this country is fully capable of sliding into tyranny - just look at the outrageous excesses of the current administration. But hey - things aren’t that bad yet, and I still maintain hope that the political process can cure our nation’s woes at this point. The best way to fight corrupt government is with a well-informed populace - force is the very last resort.

I do not think anybody in their right mind wants to have a bloody revolution in this country, but neither do I think we the people should ever surrender our arms. Unless you also propose dismantling the standing army and our police forces? I see no reason that the “authorities” should be armed and the people should not, except the advancement of tyranny.

(Incidentally, you may be interested to know that as recently as 1946, American citizens have used force of arms to divest themselves of oppressive government. See The Battle of Athens.)

Well, I dunno about you, but my immediate family is pretty level-headed, and none of us drink. That risk does not concern me, though I understand that if you have some unbalanced people in your family, you might not want to give them the combination to your safe.

And the primary purpose of a firearm is not murder - what’s your point? Inasmuch as you might say we have a societal interest in regulating things that kill a lot of innocent people, cars and alcohol are targets just as much as guns, but they do not have a constitutionally-protected purpose. (Though I would also include the freedom to consume whatever the hell you like in my list of human rights.)

And maybe I don’t want you to have access to any writing equipment because I disagree with your views on the freedom of the press! Fortunately for the both of us, we each have rights that the other must respect.

But the trick is what you mean by “regulation.” Should sales be restricted to adults and those without felony-related firearms disabilities? Sure. Should instant background checks be used to help keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals? Well, I don’t like it, but I can admit that maybe it’s necessary. It’s when you come to preposterous ideas such as gun registration or banning certain types of weapons (usually because they look scary, natch) that I draw the line.

I’m not sure such a purpose exists, aside from self-defense in those few localities where handguns are banned. Fully automatic weapons are prohibitively regulated (and I oppose such regulation), but similar semiautomatic weapons are just as effective. That notwithstanding, “you have no right to prevent me from having it” is enough, because you don’t. If you don’t like that, you’ll have to fight to change the laws, against the founding principles of this country. Good luck.

These things are not “arms” by any stretch of the imagination. Why mention them?