The right to bear arms

[GIGObuster]

@running_coach

Scalia (shocker to me) said that the 2nd Amendment does not preclude regulation.

That reminded me of the case of the Punt gun:

A Punt Gun, used for duck hunting but were banned because they depleted...

Made illegal because it made very easy to deplete the stocks of ducks and other birds. Not very sportsmanlike…

Those things were really cannons.

[Bone]

@Whack-a-Mole

If they did then that lends credence to the notion that the 2nd amendment was to form a “well regulated militia”. Hmmm…

It’s like saying because speech is protected, and we extend those protections to mediums that are new, that’s the same as saying speech really means teddy bears.

While you may think this is some adroit observation, it’s not. The advance of arms technology is a difference of degree. The attempts to conflate the meaning of “well regulated” as it is understood in modern times to that which was understood at the time of the 2nd Amendment’s writing is a difference in kind.

[obbn]

@Whack-a-Mole

None of which are potentially lethal.

Yes. Sail powered warships with muzzle loaded cannons were only dangerous in specific circumstances.

If you showed the FFs Chicago today I am willing to bet they’d rethink that amendment.

I think you might be right, but Chicago is one of the most anti 2nd cities in the country. Very restrictive gun laws, but they aren’t working. Se, here’s the thing, criminals don’t follow laws.

[yearofglad]

@Chefguy

I’m pretty sure that any speech that incites to violence is against the law. Using hate speech in general terms is protected, but using it as “fighting words” is not.

Correct. So there is no restriction on hate speech.

Hate speech certainly CAN incite to violence, but doesn’t necessarily, and there are lots of examples of non-hate speech that also CAN incite to violence and are therefore not covered under free speech.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@obbn

I think you might be right, but Chicago is one of the most anti 2nd cities in the country. Very restrictive gun laws, but they aren’t working. Se, here’s the thing, criminals don’t follow laws.

McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010 put an end to Chicago’s restrictive gun laws (it was a follow-on case to the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision).

More broadly restrictive gun laws are worthless on anything less than a national level. So what if Chicago has tough restrictions when a 20 minute drive gets you out of Chicago to places that will gladly sell you a gun?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@obbn

Very restrictive gun laws, but they aren’t working. Se, here’s the thing, criminals don’t follow laws.

Gun bans work. We know they work:

Regardless of how much of a cause-and-effect relationship there might be between the NFA and gun deaths in Australia, it’s undeniable that the firearms homicide rate in that country has decreased substantially since the implementation of the NFA. It’s not the case, however, as suggested by the misleading and long out-of-date online piece quoted in the Example block above (which was written way back in 2001) that the overall crime rate in Australia has shot up since the NFA was introduced. The rates of various types of violent crimes (sexual assault, kidnapping, homicides of all types) have scarcely changed at all, and while the robbery rate rose substantially in the 1998-2001 timeframe, it dropped below its pre-NFA level by 2004 and has continually declined since then.

SOURCE: Australian Gun Stats | Snopes.com

[Bone]

@Whack-a-Mole

McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010 put an end to Chicago’s restrictive gun laws (it was a follow-on case to the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision).

This is incorrect. McDonald targeted the ban on possession of handguns in the home. That was the only law that was impacted. After McDonald it was still impossible to acquire the permit necessary to purchase the gun, and it was still impossible to carry the gun. Did you know that?

To address those things, more litigation was required (Ezell, Ezell II, Moore, etc.*). This is another answer to the question above about other types of arms - each restriction takes its own litigation path and each restrictive law needs to be attacked individually. That’s why through the courts is not a fast, nor guaranteed strategy. A much better alternative would be through the legislature but some localities are intransigent.

More broadly restrictive gun laws are worthless on anything less than a national level. So what if Chicago has tough restrictions when a 20 minute drive gets you out of Chicago to places that will gladly sell you a gun?

Again, not correct. They are still worthless on a national level, though they would accomplish one thing on a national level the same as they do on a non-national level - they disarm law abiding people and leave them at the mercy of criminals.

*Ezell was about the new requirement to have live fire training to obtain a permit - all live fire ranges were banned - the city lost.
Ezell II was about allowing live fire ranges, but zoning them to virtual impossibility - the city lost.
Moore was about concealed carry - the city lost.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bone

Again, not correct. They are still worthless on a national level, though they would accomplish one thing on a national level the same as they do on a non-national level - they disarm law abiding people and leave them at the mercy of criminals.

Hysteria.

See post #46.

[msmith537]

@bizerta

This was prompted by a PBS show on Ruby Ridge.

Americans have the right to bear arms, but I see nothing in the Constitution that determines what arms are allowed, restricted, or inhibited. For example (A) why is a sawed off shotgun illegal? Isn’t that an “arm”? (B) automatic weapons. (C) IIRC, felons are not allowed to carry weapons. Is there something in the Constitution that forbids it? (D) 50 years ago, my father had an old shotgun that could hold five rounds. The “law” required him to put a wooden plug in it so that only three rounds could be fired without reloading. (E) If we have the right to bear arms, why can’t we just go into a gun store and cash-and-carry? (F) I’m sure I’d think of more if I had the time.

The short answer is sometimes criminals and mentally ill people (and some people who are just careless) kill innocent people with guns. A problem made more complex by the fact that since 1789 firearms have become a lot more powerful in terms of range, accuracy, stopping power, portability and rate of fire. So ideally society tries to strike a balance between safety and people’s right to hunt and defend themselves.

It’s kind of like automobiles. Pretty much anyone can own a car and go where they want. But cars are still heavily regulated.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@obbn

Se, here’s the thing, criminals don’t follow laws.

Actually, for the most part, they do seem to. Once someone becomes a criminal, they don’t all instantly start ignoring traffic signals, rob everyone they meet, sell dodgy medicine, or commit insurance fraud.

I think a better way of phrasing the point you’re trying to make is, “Criminals who want to own and/or use a gun in the proceeding of their criminal behaviour don’t follow laws to do so.” Although that doesn’t quite work either, since we then have the “turning point” issue to deal with, “want” should really be qualified. Still, it’s more accurate and useful for looking at the subject.

[Bone]

@Whack-a-Mole

Hysteria.

See post #46.

Oh I read it, previous to your posting it and again after you did so. Here is your claim:

@Whack-a-Mole

Gun bans work. We know they work:

It’s short, and in support you offer the link from Snopes. Based on what you’ve written, it’s not possible to discern what you mean when you say “work”. If you are saying that “work” = banning guns, then by the reflexive property yes, they work. If you mean something else, you’ll have to clarify. From your link however, I do note these passages:

While there is no doubt that firearms deaths in Australia have decreased substantially in the years since the implementation of the NFA, how much of that decrease is directly attributable to the NFA is still subject to debate. Much of that debate focuses on the fact that the gun death rate in Australia was already decreasing prior to the time the NFA was introduced:

For Australia, a difficulty with determining the effect of the law was that gun deaths were falling in the early 1990s. No study has explained why gun deaths were falling, or why they might be expected to continue to fall. Yet most studies generally assumed that they would have continued to drop without the NFA. Many studies still found strong evidence for a beneficial effect of the law.

And what you also quoted:

The rates of various types of violent crimes (sexual assault, kidnapping, homicides of all types) have scarcely changed at all, and while the robbery rate rose substantially in the 1998-2001 timeframe, it dropped below its pre-NFA level by 2004 and has continually declined since then:

(my bold in each of the above)

So let’s see - gun deaths fell, but they were already falling and it was assumed they would continue to fall without the NFA. In addition, other violent crime rates remained roughly the same. If you’d clarify what you mean by “work” then I can evaluate your claim.

I am glad to see you’re still holding to the idea of national gun bans. It seems like a winning issue so please, continue to advocate for that at every opportunity.

And just to be clear, are you conceding your error about Chicago gun laws?

[Weisshund]

@Okrahoma

But there is no right not to be offended (which is where the “hate speech” doesn’t come in).

hate speech comes in, not because of the words themselves, but because they are usually designed and used to convince others to move against the hated group.
To incite people to violate the hated groups rights.

You could ignore the words themselves, if they were not used to create a hostile environment for you to try to exist in.

There is a difference

a person saying “I don’t like niggers”
(no offense to anyone, just a common hateful thing we are all familiar with)
well he is a nimrod, but a harmless one, offensive but harmless.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even when it’s wrong.

but a person saying “I hate niggers, we have to round up all the niggers, string them on ropes” and rallying people to that idea and stirring up a violent environment.
Now the words are not only hateful but dangerous and begin to directly violate a person of african ancestory’s ability to live a free happy life because some nitwit is inciting people to try tossing ropes around his neck.

Now someone’s rights are being violated

[Weisshund]

@bizerta

This was prompted by a PBS show on Ruby Ridge.

Americans have the right to bear arms, but I see nothing in the Constitution that determines what arms are allowed, restricted, or inhibited. For example (A) why is a sawed off shotgun illegal? Isn’t that an “arm”? (B) automatic weapons. (C) IIRC, felons are not allowed to carry weapons. Is there something in the Constitution that forbids it? (D) 50 years ago, my father had an old shotgun that could hold five rounds. The “law” required him to put a wooden plug in it so that only three rounds could be fired without reloading. (E) If we have the right to bear arms, why can’t we just go into a gun store and cash-and-carry? (F) I’m sure I’d think of more if I had the time.

There was no limitation on arms types
If an individual could afford a cannon or a war ship, so be it.
Since the typical person can not foot the bill for those large expensive arms, that usually falls under providing for the common defense i would think.

The founding fathers did not write a specific limited arms type because they did not want any limits that could in the future make it so the constitution could be used as a tool to disarm the people by limiting them to antiquated arms.

Surely no one thinks the founding fathers were so unintelligent as to be unaware of the progression of arms types through the ages?
club gives way to blade, blade is challenged by armor, armor gives way to heavy bow, armor gets heavier, armor gives way to primordial fire arms, which give way to match locks, then flint locks, then percussion caps, then modern types etc.

You would not make it a right for your people to arm and defend themselves against what ever tribulations there may be, and then knowingly limit them in that ability to a tool that you know will at some point be surpassed by something new.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bone

So let’s see - gun deaths fell, but they were already falling and it was assumed they would continue to fall without the NFA. In addition, other violent crime rates remained roughly the same. If you’d clarify what you mean by “work” then I can evaluate your claim.

So…banning guns did NOT increase crime which suggests private ownership of guns plays NO role in preventing or lessening crime.

Gun deaths decreased dramatically after the ban…not just on a slow trend down but plummeted.

So, private gun ownership has no effect on overall crime rates and a ban dramatically lowers deaths by guns.

I fail to see the benefit of having guns be a part of society here. There is almost no upside. It is all downside.

[Bone]

@Whack-a-Mole

So…banning guns did NOT increase crime which suggests private ownership of guns plays NO role in preventing or lessening crime.

Gun deaths decreased dramatically after the ban…not just on a slow trend down but plummeted.

So, private gun ownership has no effect on overall crime rates and a ban dramatically lowers deaths by guns.

I fail to see the benefit of having guns be a part of society here. There is almost no upside. It is all downside.

I’m trying to follow the point you’re trying to make. Were you going to respond to these?

@Bone

If you’d clarify what you mean by “work” then I can evaluate your claim.
…
And just to be clear, are you conceding your error about Chicago gun laws?

[mikecurtis]

@HurricaneDitka

I’d never considered the possibility before, but I wonder if you could submit an application for a nuclear warhead as a “destructive device”. Here is the form you’d use for it (I think I’ve got this right). I wonder if they’d accept it.

i dont know if owning a nuclear device is prohibited, per se, but using nuclear material to harm or threaten some one is (18 U.S. Code § 831 - Prohibited transactions involving nuclear materials)

(7) knowingly threatens to use nuclear material or nuclear byproduct material to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person or substantial damage to property or to the environment under circumstances in which the threat may reasonably be understood as an expression of serious purposes;

so you may be able to own one but you could never use it or say you were gonna!

mc

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bone

I’m trying to follow the point you’re trying to make. Were you going to respond to these?

You said national gun bans:

“…disarm law abiding people and leave them at the mercy of criminals.”

I showed this is provably not true. A point you are dodging.

To answer your questions:

• By “work” I mean fewer people die as a result of crime when a nation severely restricts private gun ownership.

• As to Chicago I will partially concede. I get there were more court cases after McDonald that had to be gotten through. It turns out though that gun ownership in Chicago today is allowed and indeed was little different than other big cities. Be that as it may I do not see what this buys you in the argument.

Our regulations are actually similar to those of other major cities, said Roseanna Ander, the founder and executive director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab. The Crime Lab works to reduce violence through scientific analysis and research.

“At this point, we’re probably fairly comparable …,” Ander said. “I think in New York and Los Angeles, both cities have pretty restrictive gun laws.”

Even in the past, when Chicago had tougher gun regulations, its handgun ban was rivaled by the “restrictive gun laws” of New York and the “onerous” process to get a permit and have a gun in Los Angeles, Ander said.

SOURCE: Does Chicago Have The Strictest Gun Laws in the Country? - Downtown - Chicago - DNAinfo

[Bone]

@Whack-a-Mole

You said national gun bans:

“…disarm law abiding people and leave them at the mercy of criminals.”

I showed this is provably not true. A point you are dodging.

I’m not sure what you are disagreeing with, but we can separate that statement to clarify. Let’s see, a gun ban would disarm law abiding people. Do you agree?

It would leave disarmed people at the mercy of criminals. I think this is obviously true, but if you could clarify why you think this is untrue that would help.

• By “work” I mean fewer people die as a result of crime when a nation severely restricts private gun ownership.

So your assertion is that as a result of the NFA in Australia, fewer people died as a result of crime than they would have without the NFA - is that a fair interpretation?

• As to Chicago I will partially concede. I get there were more court cases after McDonald that had to be gotten through. It turns out though that gun ownership in Chicago today is allowed and indeed was little different than other big cities. Be that as it may I do not see what this buys you in the argument.

Ok. It established the facts upon which we are dealing with. I’m perfectly willing to agree to disagree on any subjective thing, but on matters of facts it’s important to be clear.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bone

It would leave disarmed people at the mercy of criminals. I think this is obviously true, but if you could clarify why you think this is untrue that would help.

Why obviously true? A disarmed populace would include criminals, to some extent. The extent is, obviously, debatable to say the least. But disarming criminals means lessening the opportunity for them to put disarmed people at their mercy.

[Weisshund]

@mikecurtis

i dont know if owning a nuclear device is prohibited

While the owning if it is not disallowed per say in the 2nd amendment, i think there are a few things which all sane persons could agree upon.

1. The materials themselves, even totally unweaponized are very extremely dangerous
   to all around them, immensely fatally dangerous.

2. The general populace does not have the safe facilities to keep this kind of material.

3. As a weapon, the devices are not controllable completely in who or what they harm, even with the most expert of user, and the effects are long lasting and not easily rectified.

4. These weapons would be virtually impossible to deploy in the protection of the state(s) the collateral damage to what is being protected is too great.
   Kill the victim to save it from murder.

5. because of the extreme ramifications of using a weapon of this type, it should be something that would be done as a collective than an individual choice.
   (Not to mention only when all other choices have been exhausted)

I think we would all agree, that a nuclear device should not be open to individual use and ownership, the risks are too great, even an accident can be a loss of life in the millions.

While it is a weapon and so technically arms, you can do little with it to defend life property your home your state or even your country really, even small tactical nukes are not something you want to go shooting in your own backyard, unless you dont want to live in that backyard anymore.

You can, with proper licensing and proper facilities etc, if you have the cash, build and own a nuclear power station though i believe.
Good luck getting the permits issued though.