Ok, there is no such thing as a gun ‘free’ society but in the U.K (and much of Europe) we are pretty close. And trust me on this, I feel very safe walking around knowing that John Q Citizen isn’t packing a hand cannon. What I want to know is why it is that an awful lot of Americans feel that it is even required for your own protection when you have just as much chance of being killed randomly as I do? Do you get into dangerous situations on a daily basis? Is America really that bad? I don’t think it is, I know a lot of people from all around the States and most of them say that they think London (even more so Brixton, where I live) is more dangerous but no one here feels that intimidated that they need to arm themselves to the teeth. I know you guys have the ‘right’ to bear arms but that doesn’t mean you are obliged to. Someone please tell me, is America really as bad as you think it is or do you just live in a climate of self imposed fear, fearing that which is highly unlikely to happen whilst ignoring the more real and immediate dangers?
You make some good points, xtsime. I don’t have much to disagree with, just a few things:
I guess this is my fault for being sloppy in my wording. I should have said, "Why should we have to allow shit to happen by letting people have guns, and then say “shit happens”. My response is: “Well then DON’T let shit happen.” To make the argument “oh well, if people have guns, something bad is bound to happen” kind of begs the question of whether they ought to have the guns in the first place. That was my point.
Well I already made this point, but I’ll repeat it. It feels like you’re trying to imply that regulating guns constitutes “nanny government”, but I don’t think it does. Like I said, protecting me from myself and protecting me from other people are 2 entirely different concepts. If my neighbor has a gun and wants to shoot me, and the government takes his gun away, that does not repress me, but rather protects me. It in fact increases my freedom - i.e. my freedom not to be shot.
Surely you don’t believe that we must allow citizens unlimited freedom to do as they please. You don’t advocate allowing private citizens to own nuclear weapons, or napalm, or anthrax, do you? But why not? If we take these things away from people, then by your logic we’re denying them of their personal responsibility. Everyone (other than a staunch anarchist) draws the line somewhere, how is your line any less arbitrary than mine?
This argument depends on your assertion that private ownership of guns is constitutionally protected. My opinion is that speech is protected, but private gun ownership is not. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
Same here.
This could be a debate in and of itself, depending what you mean by “tolerance”.
IMO, these are not analagous. Although I suppose you could make the case that alcohol hurts other people because they could be killed by a drunk driver, one could hardly say that the purpose of alcohol and/or drugs is to injure other people.
Another subject worthy of its own thread. Victimless crime, or hurtful and oppressive to women? Too much to get into right now.
I take issue with your implication that ALL government action is inherently repressive. Are civil rights laws repressive? Depends who you think is being repressed, doesn’t it? Was freeing the slaves repressive? Are public schools repressive? Is fighting organized crime repressive? How about regulations that prevent cars from having headlights that blind you, or requiring drinking water to be free of toxins? This is boiling down to your standard Libertarian vs. Liberal argument. I’m a liberal, and as such don’t believe that all goverment regulation is inherently evil. Of course that doesn’t mean it’s all good, but it’s not just evil by default.
O.K., and where in all that did you see the words “federal legislation”, or any reference to federal legislation? This would be amusing if it weren’t so sad. Your frantic hand-waving is getting more and more silly.
Also, I believe you are the one who made the assumption about which clause I was saying was subordinate. And the thing is, it doesn’t even matter; it’s a silly semantic nitpick. The point, as I already said, is that the two parts of the sentence are not seperate thoughts. I didn’t say it was the second clause, and even if I did, it’s not even important which one is the subordinate clause.
More and more non-sequiturs. Whether or not I consider the ACLU as the definitive interpretation of the constitution has nothing to do with whether it’s equivalent to a federal law.
And try to understand that citing one source among many does not mean that I consider that one source the “authoritative” anything. What planet are you on where you think that was my sole argument?
Yes, if it’s not in the Constitution, then you don’t have a Constitutional right (duh). That’s not the same as “forbidden”. What is this, five times now that this point has completely blown over your head? Are you going for a record here? Seriously, man - this is now beyond annoying.
And I haven’t disagreed with that. We’re talking about state laws in this thread. Why are you having such a fucking difficult time with this? It’s not complicated, dude.
Would you not consider the Second Amendment to be “federal legislation”? Furthermore, there already has been much “legislation” within the congress in regards to “gun control”, some, such as the “Lautenberg Amendment”, even blatantly unconstitutional.
The “Lautenberg Amendment” was legislation that made it unlawful for those previously convicted of an act of “misdemeanor” domestic violence to possess a firearm.
Article 1, section 10 of the Constitution expressly forbids the enacting of “ex post facto” law. The Lautenberg Amendment, by levying an additional penalty to those convicted of a previous act, is ex post facto. But hey, lets not have the Constitution get in the way of the “agenda”.
Okay, state laws. Why is it deemed acceptable for states to enact gun control laws contrary to the Constitution? States cannot enact laws that abridge the freedom of speech, can they? Especially after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Amendment specifically states that:
According to the Bill of Rights, one of the privileges of citizens of the United States is the “right to keep and bear arms”.
No, you are NOT close to having a “gun-free” society; instead you’ve produced a society where citizens are by and large disarmed, but government officials aren’t. That’s fine as long as you think you can always trust your government never to abuse the power that position gives them over the “ordinary citizenry”. Americans are far too wary of the possibility for such abuse to occur to willingly disarm - remember, we fought our government once (and won). How reasonable is it for us to assume that we will NEVER have to do it again? “Never” is a very long time.
And most Americans AREN’T armed; only about half of all households own firearms of any sort. We don’t walk around in a constant state of paranoia or fear, as you seem to think. We do reserve the right to decide if we NEED to be armed (something your government has denied to you, regardless of how safe, or unsafe, your personal circumstances may be).
No, I wouldn’t refer to it that way. The Constitution is the Constitution, and legislation is legislation. To use the two terms interchangeably is to confuse the issue (which is what you are doing). The Bill of Rights, as part of the Constitution, is very important because it is given the highest legal protection. A right that is conferred in the Constitution supersedes all laws, federal AND state. Also, the requirements for changing it are much higher. A law can be changed by a simple vote of the legislature, or in some cases by a citizen referendum. However, the requirements for changing the Constitution are much higher, and in fact, changes to the Constitution are not commonplace. That’s why it’s of paramount importance that we understand to what we are referring.
If a right is conferred by the U.S. Constitution, that means that NO state can pass a law forbidding that right; such a law would be struck down by the courts. And this is key: If something is NOT conferred as a right by the U.S. Constitution, then any state is free to pass a law restricting or forbidding that thing. (provided the state’s own constitution does not protect it.) For example, there’s nothing in the Constitution that says you have the right to bugger sheep. So your state can pass a law making it illegal to have sex with a sheep, and the people who enjoy buggering sheep would be S.O.L. - it’s not a constitutional right just because you want it to be.
So what it comes down to is whether you interpret the U.S. Constitution as conferring the right for individual citizens to possess guns for self-defense.
So do you now understand that we CAN discuss the U.S. Constitution with regard to how it may or may not constrain STATE’S rights, and that DOESN’T mean we are talking about federal legislation? This is the last time I’m going to explain it, so if you don’t get it now, then I will leave you to your own devices.
I have never made any argument regarding whether FEDERAL gun-control legislation is permitted by the powers enumerated in the constitution. This is the first time you have brought up ANY examples of such legislation. There hasn’t even been anything to discuss on that issue, since this is the very first time the issue has actually been addressed in this thread. Yet you have for some time now pretended that that was what we were discussing. Sheesh!
That’s just a blatantly dishonest characterization of how this discussion has gone so far. Shame on you.
Ha, ha! So now you want to knock us back to square one, eh? Nice try.:rolleyes:
What, are you kidding? What did the British have in the Revolutionary War? Muskets? Gosh, you could put an eye out with that.
What does the U.S. government have now? I can’t even list the armaments that the government possesses, but just for starters - largest stockpile of nuclear warheads in the world comes to mind. You’re arguing that you need to have a gun in case you want to overthrow the U.S. government? Give me a big, fat, hairy break here. The only people making that argument are the total fringe wackos.
By the way, we didn’t fight our government once, we fought it twice (the second time wasn’t justified IMO), and the record is 1-1.
Speak for yourself. I find it quite disconcerting to always wonder whether some nutcase is going to pull a gun on me in the middle of the freeway.
Erm, sorry mate but this statement just makes you sound like a grade A nutjob. I really don’t have the paranoia that the government is going to suddenley inforce a ‘1984’ style totalitarian government overnight because I simply don’t see how it would benefit anyone - least of all the government. Then again you do have Bush as a president so maybe you aren’t so paranoid afterall, it started with Iraq…maybe you are next?
Oh and the government didn’t denie us the right we wanted to ban handguns following the Dunblane massacre, public opinion was massivley in favour of an outright ban, also you do realise that shotguns and rifles are available with the proper certification so when the revolution begins we will be ready.
No, I don’t interpret the Constitution as “conferring” said right. As previously pointed out, the right existed prior to the Constitution, ergo, the right was not conferred. In this case, the government is prohibited from infringing on that pre-existing right.
Okay, lets. States cannot enact laws that are contrary to the Constitution, especially after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Amendment specifically states that: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”
According to the Bill of Rights, one of the privileges of citizens of the United States is the “right to keep and bear arms”.
So now, why is it deemed acceptable for states to enact gun control laws contrary to the Constitution?
But you just said, “we CAN discuss the U.S. Constitution with regard to how it may or may not constrain STATE’S rights”. It’s obvious that you really don’t want to do that, do you?
No, it was an accurate characterization of the hypocrisy that is inherent to the liberal orthodoxy.
It really is kind of comical, how those on the Left use the Constitution as a tool of convenience for the furtherence of their agenda. While portraying themselves as honorable guardians of constitutional integrity, in reality, they have no compunction for circumventing the Constitution.
What a great debate to spark off 
For your bias information needs, I’m also a licensed concealed weapon carrier in my state (and those honoring it reciprocally).
In response to the “2nd Ammend. doesnt allow personal carry” arguments… there has long been debate in recent times about the meaning of this in modern times, and the supreme court has yet to have any final say in the matter. However, if you’re looking for the real original meaning, it is very clear from historical documentation that the authors of said ammendment intended it to apply to individual ownership and carry. You can do the googling yourself, but there’s a plethora of papers and letters from involved founding fathers that better explain their positions on the matter. They thought every responsible, upstanding citizen should own and carry a gun.
As for the statistical likelyhood of shooting due to increased arms in general… you can play that game in either direction. States with concealed weapons laws have shown in some statistical studies that violent crimes and especially rapes have dropped since the law was implemented. Also consider that due to the stringent legal requirements, the people issued licenses tend to, statistically, be the least likely people to ever use it criminally.
One other point I’d like to respond to is the “lack of training” one, and at the same time expound on the quality of the people who get the licenses. Here in TX at least, we go through a 12-hour course that covers gun safety, situational awareness, basic criminal psychology, the basic psychology of threat escalation and de-escalation, etc. We are also required to take a handgun proficiency test to prove marksmanship at a reasonable level for safe shooting (basically you have to score about a 75% accuracy overall on a combined total of shots of varying distance up to about 50 feet). If you’ve ever committed a felony offense, you are inelligible. If you’ve committed and misdemeanor crime other than “class C” (speeding tickets, basically) within the past 5 years, you’re out. If you commit any of the above while holding the license, it gets either suspended or revoked depending on the class of crime you commit. You’re required to go through federal, state, and local background checks involved permanent fingerprint cards. From experience I know at the state/local level they actually place a human call to the police and the local state troopers in case they have any “off the record” criminal info on you and to give them a chance to object for a good reason. You’re also out for any past document mental illness problems, restraining order issues, etc…
By your logic, the US should have won in Viet Nam, and the Russians should be in total control of Afghanistan and Chechnya. Ever consider that there’s more to winning a conflict than simply having the greatest stockpile of arms?
(The British had more than just muskets, BTW, and their forces were better-armed than the revolutionaries.)
When did I say that an armed citizenry guarenteed a rebellion would be successful? What I will say, though, is that an unarmed citizenry is in a far worse position to change their situation than an armed one, should they find that non-violent alternatives are not succeeding.
An armed populace stands in a different relationship to government authority than an unarmed one. I don’t see how anyone can deny that.
Who said the change would be sudden?
As for the rest of your argument - I’m going to ask you a question that will at first seem off topic. Indulge me.
Do you think the government should issue journalist licenses, and that only people who possess a valid journalist license should be allowed to publish in the mass media (newspapers, magazines, radio and television, the Internet)?
Remember before you answer, freedom of speech IS dangerous. It DOES kill people. It allows idiotic “commentators” like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh to mislead the public on critical issues. It allows people to put up testamonials on their websites that a diet of brown rice and grapefruit rinds cured their cancer, and they’re SO glad they didn’t bother with chemotherapy. It means that hatful bigots such as Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps can spew their bigotry legally, poisoning the minds of a whole new generation of young, impressionable kids.
The State Department is full of experts on international affairs. The Department of Health is staffed by highly-educated physicians. Surely we could trust the government to determine who should be considered qualified to possess a journalist permit, and to issue permits only to people who aren’t likely to promote unsafe or dangerous views in public media?
If you DON’T trust the government with that power, why don’t you? And if you don’t trust them to restrict the right to free speech sensibly, why trust them to restrict the right to bear arms sensibly?
The fact is, it IS in the interests of government (read = “all those currently holding a position of power”) to control and manipulate people. Controlling public discourse makes it easier to contol the populace by making it less likely that people will think in ways those in power find problematic. Disarming the public also aids in controlling the populace, by increasing the force discrepency between agents of the government and the people at large.
That’s right - we DO have Bush as President. And Ashcroft as Attorney General. And believe me, I take great comfort in the fact that, as things stand right now, when the American people finally have had enough of the neocons’ bullshit, they still possess the power to forcibly remove thse idiots from office should they be unwilling to stand down and depart voluntarily.
(That’s right - I’m a Democrat, and I loathe George W. Bush. Surprise! I’m also a member of the ACLU, although I strongly disagree with that organization’s current stand with regards to the Second Amendment. Not all “pro-gun whackos” are right-wing. Perhaps you should re-consider your prejudices?)
So the British population voluntarily agreed to throw away some of their freedom, and THAT’S supposed to impress me? If the public next decided to ban the practice of Islam as a “dangerous religion”, should I think that move is OK because that’s what the majority wanted to do - or should I decry the act as a restriction on freedom of religion?
Face facts - you ARE less free now than you were before that law was passed. It’s a marginal decrease in your freedom, to be sure, and perhaps a decrease that at the moment isn’t important to you, but it’s a decrease nontheless. And should you ever (God forbid) find yourself in a position where you DO feel the need to carry a handgun, it’s a decrease you might well come to rue.
Go back and read xtimse’s earlier post in this thread (post #138) - and this time, read it slowly and carefully. His position mirrors my own. And consider this - if the average person isn’t responsible enough to wield a firearm, then how can they be considered responsible enough to wield a ballot?
From what I understand, they have deliberately stayed out of it. The few court decisions on the issue have come out against an absolute right to bear arms. You do realize that a court decision is valid until it is overturned by a higher court, right? Just because the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on an issue does not not make lower court rulings invalid. The Supreme Court is not required to rule on all issues.
This would be an interesting avenue of discussion, were you to actually provide any evidence, or even any kind of reasoning. But “you can do the googling yourself” doesn’t cut it here in G.D. - sorry.
You have presented absolutely nothing to support your contention that owning handguns is an inalienable right. Like I said, it’s not a right just because you want it to be.
Are you smoking crack? You JUST got through saying the right existed prior to the Constitution; now you again assert that the right is conferred by the Constitution. Your “moving target” debating style is really annoying.
-
We had a huge discussion about whether the 2nd Amendment confers the right for individuals to bear arms, in regard to STATE laws restricting gun ownership.
-
You obfuscated and filibustered on a strawman tangent of what laws the federal government is allowed to pass. You refused to admit that it was possible to discuss the U.S. Constitution in relation to state laws. You incorrectly thought the U.S. Constitution was synonymous with federal laws.
-
After much time and effort, I finally got you to realize we were talking about state laws, not federal.
-
Without admitting your mistake, you simply said "O.K., let’s discuss state laws. (What do you think we’ve been doing the whole time?)
-
Now you want to just pretend we never had any discussion about the 2nd Amendment, and simply assert “but it says we have the right to bear arms”, as if you’re bringing it up for the first time. But you can’t even maintain a consistent line of reasoning as to whether you think this phantom “right” existed before or after the 2nd Amendment was written. You just use whichever tack is convenient to you at the moment. Every time I nail your ass on one point, you switch to an unrelated line of reasoning. When I nail your ass on that point, you switch back to the first point, conveniently forgetting that we already discussed that one.
-
Meanwhile, you make up ridiculous characterizations of my arguments, and when I call you on it, you pitifully claim you were addressing the “liberal orthodoxy” or some other such nonsense. You ought to argue with your intellect rather than your emotions.
Dude, you are just all over the map. Why don’t you take a deep breath and try to figure out exactly what you want to say, and then stick with it?
Yeah, sure.:rolleyes:
Utter bullshit.
What follows are random cut-n-pastes that came up from 15 minutes of google effort:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason (3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..." -- Richard Henry Lee writing in "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788, page 169.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." -- Tench Coxe - 1788.
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” - James Madison
“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing
degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our
own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms
in our own possession and under our own direction, and having
them under the management of Congress? If our defence be
the_real_object of having those arms, in whose hands can they
be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as
in our own hands?”
-=(Patrick Henry, in_Debates in the Several State
Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution,_
Jonathan Elliot, ed. 1836, v.3 p.168)=-
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” - Thomas Jefferson
“Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense.” - John Adams
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” - Thomas Jefferson
“The said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” - Samuel Adams, U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.” - Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
And how about we throw in a Jesus quote too?
“He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” - Jesus, Luke 22:36
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” - Ben Franklin
“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment … as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.” - U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, 1982
“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia’, the ‘security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms’, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.” - John F. Kennedy, April 1960
Does that cut it?
Ahem… is this thing on? (crickets chirp)
Yeah, I thought so.
Let me re-iterate again:
“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment … as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.” - U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, 1982
Much better, ph317 - excellent research; I think you’ve made a very good point here. Now if I can make a minor nitpick, and not to detract from your great point, but we usually include links to the sites. So when you google stuff like that, just copy & paste the URL in your post.
Um, not sure why you said that. You have to realize that we don’t all spend 24 hours a day on the SDMB, so don’t panic when you haven’t gotten a response in 7 hours. You might have to even wait a day or two for people to post responses sometimes, since we all have lives.