# The War on Guns **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 17, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101 "2013-09-17T22:13:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/241 "2013-09-23T19:56:48Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > … other items with real, practical uses. > > Given its design function, and lack of other practical and useful ones, there is no reason to permit such a thing to exist at all then, is there? You’re straying from your “guns are _designed_ to kill” argument (with which I might quibble, but don’t care enough because I don’t consider it terribly relevant), to a new, false one that “guns don’t serve any useful purpose”. Of course they do, that’s why police departments across the country make them part of the standard equipment issued to their officers. There are reasons millions of people shell out billions of dollars every year for them. ---
**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 23, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/242 "2013-09-23T19:58:02Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Ahh, I see! Your understanding of the Constitution comes to a screeching halt before the part where the Supreme Court (notice the name, it has significance) is declared to be the final authority on what is and is not Constitutional. I’m guessing that you are including SCOTUS in “the government” that you castigate for Constitutional violations, given the rulings it has handed down wherein the 2nd Amendment allows for something less than absolute, across the board, everywhere, anytime, allowance for possession of all possible real or imagined arms. See Antonin Scalia and others, upthread and/or elsewhere. It made all the papers. _“You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”_ — Thomas Jefferson Do you deny that allowing the Supreme Court to claim such power over Constitutional matters has led to the fulfillment of the warning that Jefferson gave us? > [@CannyDan](#): > > This does at least allow me to parse, and to discount, the remainder of your argument. In case I need to spell it out specifically, a policy of enhanced and/or expanded background checks prior to acquisition of a firearm would have no need to overcome any Constitutional hurdle, your blather notwithstanding. There is no spin you can put on it that can hide the obvious truth here. The Second Amendment asserts a right of the American people to keep and bear arms, and forbids any infringement of this right. Submitting to even something as benign as a background check as a condition of exercising this right is an infringement thereof; and serves no purpose at all other than to facilitate government’s illegally discrimination against some of its citizens by seeking to deny them this right entirely. There is no honest way to reconcile such a policy with what is clearly stated in the Constitution. ---
**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 23, 2013, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/243 "2013-09-23T20:04:58Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes, and thanks. > > Odd, isn’t it, how the only Constitutional right that the Founding Fathers (_cue heavenly choir music_) gave an explicit purpose statement, and whose scope they explicitly \*limited, \*is taken by so many to be absolute in extent, inviolable, and supreme above all others. It’s a completely visceral, emotional, unhealthy position, not a reasoned or factual or morally-derived or legally-derived one, and that makes it hard to overcome. \*Exposing \*it as such is easy, of course, as far as that goes. Where in the Constitution is there anything that limits the right to keep and bear arms, or authorizes any government power to limit this right? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/244 "2013-09-23T20:05:00Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > There is no honest way to reconcile such a policy with what is clearly stated in the Constitution. Are you contending that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court’s role in interpreting it is dishonest? edited to add: Actually, considering the over-the-top invectives already used in this thread against those who dared disagree with the OP, “dishonest” comes off as somewhat mild…but I still don’t like it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/245 "2013-09-23T20:06:00Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > Where in the Constitution is there anything that limits the right to keep and bear arms, or authorizes any government power to limit this right? The first half of the Second Amendment. There is one, you know. ---
**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 23, 2013, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/246 "2013-09-23T20:09:37Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Are you contending that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court’s role in interpreting it is dishonest? The Second Amendment asserts a right of the people, and states that this right _“…shall not be infringed.”_ You are trying to argue that this right may be infringed without violating the Second Amendment. You’re trying to argue that the Second Amendment does not say what it clearly does say; either that, or that government is not obligated to obey it. ---
**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 23, 2013, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/247 "2013-09-23T20:11:40Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > Where in the Constitution is there anything that limits the right to keep and bear arms, or authorizes any government power to limit this right? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The first half of the Second Amendment. There is one, you know. It says no such thing. It states a purpose of the right affirmed therein, but does not, in any way, contradict the remainder of the Amendment which affirms the right and forbids any infringement thereof. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/248 "2013-09-23T20:12:47Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > The Second Amendment asserts a right of the people, and states that this right _“…shall not be infringed.”_ You are trying to argue that this right may be infringed without violating the Second Amendment. > > You’re trying to argue that the Second Amendment does not say what it clearly does say; either that, or that government is not obligated to obey it. So the answer to my question is…? I don’t want any misunderstanding or accusations of misinterpretation here. ---
**Author:** ![Eutychus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Eutychus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eutychus)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/249 "2013-09-23T20:15:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > guns accidentally kill very few children. Compared to something like water, your child would be much safer with a pool filled with guns: [Cite](http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Unintentional_Deaths_2010-a.pdf) (I understand this chart might confuse some. “Unintentional firearm” only shows up once, in 10th place for 10-14 year-olds) And yet we never seem to hear about some madman killing a bunch of people by dumping them into a swimming pool. Why do you think that is? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/250 "2013-09-23T20:16:47Z")
> [@Eutychus](#): > > And yet we never seem to hear about some madman killing a bunch of people by dumping them into a swimming pool. Why do you think that is? Because it’s easier to teach people how to swim then to teach them how to repel bullets? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/251 "2013-09-23T20:18:29Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Why would I want to play the apples to aardvarks analogy game with you? I’m replying to \*your \*fucking “point”. If you can’t defend it, not my problem. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I’ll start that as soon as you do. What do you base your right to safety assertion on? Going to be hard for me to factually refute your fantasy. Scroll up. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I haven’t fought sane regulation of firearms. Because you don’t think there’s any such a thing, do you? If you do, then what have you \*really \*supported? What measures do you support _now_, and what are you doing about it? :dubious: > [@](#): > > And, getting back to the point you’ve tried to muddy, your expectation of a ‘right’ to safety is merely illusion. The fact that a right can be infringed does not mean it doesn’t exist, or that measures must be taken to protect it as far as is reasonable here in the real world, in balance with other affected rights. Who’s “muddying” what, here? > [@](#): > > It’s not your fault that you’ve had your fears played on by groups to heighten that fear and blow it out of proportion. Look at the anti-nuclear movement for a good example of how this works. Or look at the tens of thousands of real people who are really killed by guns every real year. Compare that to the tyranny/militia and quasi-police play-acting stuff you use to defend keeping them. Which one is real and which one is fantasy born of “fear played on by groups to heighten them”? :dubious: Time to take a look in the damn mirror, fraidy-cat. You’re being played. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/252 "2013-09-23T20:21:36Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > It says no such thing. It states a purpose of the right affirmed therein, but does not, in any way, contradict the remainder of the Amendment which affirms the right and forbids any infringement thereof. So the first half has no real effect at all? Gee, why would the FF’s have even bothered writing it at all, in your opinion? Pretty silly of them to waste that ink, don’tcha think? Try again. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/253 "2013-09-23T20:30:30Z")
> [@Eutychus](#): > > And yet we never seem to hear about some madman killing a bunch of people by dumping them into a swimming pool. Why do you think that is? You had said, “I swear, if there were a baby buggy that killed as many children accidentally as guns do, we’d be screaming to get it off the market. And almost everyone would willingly acquiesce.” I pointed out that guns (despite there being more than 300 million in the USA today) don’t accidentally kill all that many children. What do mass shootings (which are themselves extremely rare and even more rarely directed at children, and notably, _not accidental_) have to do with our conversation? ---
**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 23, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/254 "2013-09-23T20:31:14Z")
> [@Eutychus](#): > > And yet we never seem to hear about some madman killing a bunch of people by dumping them into a swimming pool. Why do you think that is? How many people die from drowning or other mishaps in a swimming pool, compared to those who are killed in any manner by madmen? It seems to me that to focus on any method or tool which a madman might use to kill, entirely misses the point. ---
**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 23, 2013, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/255 "2013-09-23T20:35:10Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So the answer to my question is…? I don’t want any misunderstanding or accusations of misinterpretation here. Just to point out we’ve had this discussion with \*\*Bob \*\*in another thread. My response then is the same as now: > [@Save the guns law: What's the point?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/155): > > I’m a pretty staunch gun rights advocate. \*\* Bob Blaylock\*\* - please don’t be on my side - you make us look bad. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So the first half has no real effect at all? Gee, why would the FF’s have even bothered writing it at all, in your opinion? Pretty silly of them to waste that ink, don’tcha think? > > Try again. Have you read Heller vs. DC? Held from the opinion: > [@](#): > > ``` > (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22. > > ``` > > (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28. Try again yourself. ---
**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 23, 2013, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/256 "2013-09-23T20:38:06Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Are you contending that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court’s role in interpreting it is dishonest? > [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > The Second Amendment asserts a right of the people, and states that this right _“…shall not be infringed.”_ You are trying to argue that this right may be infringed without violating the Second Amendment. > > You’re trying to argue that the Second Amendment does not say what it clearly does say; either that, or that government is not obligated to obey it. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > So the answer to my question is…? I don’t want any misunderstanding or accusations of misinterpretation here. The question of whether I am calling you “dishonest”? It seems that perhaps you’re trying to bait me into saying something that will get me moderated for a “personal attack”. You insist on repeatedly asserting something that is clearly, objectively untrue, that any honest, rational person would see is untrue. You’re trying to argue that words written in black and white do not say what they clearly do say. You might as well be staring at the sun, while denying that it exists. There are a few reasons why someone might make such an assertion, but I suspect that I cannot now state any such reasons, or speculate about which of them are behind your behavior, without getting dinged by the moderators. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/257 "2013-09-23T20:46:50Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Have you read Heller vs. DC? Yes, fascinating document, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. You oughta read it sometime. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/258 "2013-09-23T20:48:16Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > The question of whether I am calling you “dishonest”? No-the question was(and still is): Are you contending that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court’s role in interpreting it is dishonest? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/259 "2013-09-23T20:49:28Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes, fascinating document, isn’t it? You oughta read it sometime. Of course, you still have to accept the authority of The Supreme Court, first. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/260 "2013-09-23T20:50:37Z")
Only if they rule the way I want them to. Otherwise they’re jackbooted tyrants and out come the weapons. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101.md?page=14)