The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

[angrysoba]

Nope. But in this thread several completely nonsensical comparisons have been made on both sides of the argument.

The thread topic is the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and needs to be understood as a part of a very long-visioned experiment by well educated people quite familiar with abuse of power and over-reaching by g'vt both to lower levels of governance and to the people themselves.

The Bill of Rights does not grant permissions, but restricts Federal intrusion on permissions. That distinction is very important. The Rights as written are to be the assumed baselin. Those who have not studied American history (and probably many who have) may not realize that the Bill of Rights was in itself a very contentious item. Some at the time felt that the Constitution stood well enough on it's own and needed no further elaboration; that personal freedoms would be held sacrosanct and the Federal g'vt would stand back and let the States figure out what was appropriate at state level, and so on and so forth down the jurisdictions. Others realized that any institution will gradually experience what we now call "mission creep" and begin to intrude on personal freedoms, inevitably, over time. Thus, the Bill of Rights, to specifically and explicitly keep Federal hands off certain areas. (Yes, I know I'm over simplifying. Thousand page books have been written on both sides of the argument outlined above).

Yes, I know, and so was the original document which influenced it, namely the 1689 Bill of Rights which was drawn up to restrict the power of the Crown in response to the attempts by Charles II and James II to reassert absolute monarchy.

And one of the main contentions about the Bill of Rights was that to enumerate rights was seen as dangerous, as it presupposed that other rights not contained in the document were thereby not granted. This is what one of the main arguments over the document was.

The 2nd amendment was not written exclusively in response to the threat of the British, as was suggested upthread, but in anticipation of the possible future threat of "all enemies, foreign and domestic," as those of us in uniform pledge to defend against.

Local jurisdictions are free to enact and enforce restrictions on "keeping" and "bearing" arms; the 2nd amendment is intended to keep Federal hands off of that. People and organizations like the NRA that flip out when a university wants to ban concealed carry on campus have no grounds to invoke the 2nd amendment. A university, even a state university, is technically private property.

With that in mind, looking at gun use in Detroit and Dallas and Dublin are 3 different questions.

In fact, my original comparisons came in response to comparisons that were made by pro-gun posters.

No time to elaborate now.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

In fact, my original comparisons came in response to comparisons that were made by pro-gun posters..

Hence my specific rejection of ALL comparisons as equally useless for the purpose of this thread.

 

[WildCat]

I think that's singling out the tool as if it is somehow worse than other tools with which crimes are committed which is kind of silly. In other words, I don't particularly care if I'm being held up with a knife or a gun and the courts shouldn't care either.

That's fine too. Point being we should be putting violent people in jail, not people who are harmful to no one but themselves.

 

[triforcharity]

Why are you so aggressive?

I dunno, maybe because someone started a thread, asked a question, received a HUGE amount of responses, even some direct questions, ignored those direct questions that would further the conversation, seemingly ignoring people, only to show up a few days later to say, basically, oh well, I'm not convinced.

That's the DEFINITION of JAQ'ing off, and I would NEVER had guessed in 1000 years YOU of all posters would do that. It's shocking to me honestly. I will however apologize for being overly rude. I just find your position absurd, especially considering the progress of this thread. Many have explained why it's a right, even using historical documents, legal opinions, and even SCOTUS decisions what are QUITE educational, and you've basically ignored it all, for your own emotional bias.

Doesn't make my aggressive behavior right, so I will apologize to you.

I respond to people who are polite and maintain their civility when they are challenged.

Ok, I shall try to do my best.

 

[arthwollipot]

I dunno, maybe because someone started a thread, asked a question, received a HUGE amount of responses, even some direct questions, ignored those direct questions that would further the conversation, seemingly ignoring people, only to show up a few days later to say, basically, oh well, I'm not convinced.

That's the DEFINITION of JAQ'ing off, and I would NEVER had guessed in 1000 years YOU of all posters would do that. It's shocking to me honestly. I will however apologize for being overly rude. I just find your position absurd, especially considering the progress of this thread. Many have explained why it's a right, even using historical documents, legal opinions, and even SCOTUS decisions what are QUITE educational, and you've basically ignored it all, for your own emotional bias.

Doesn't make my aggressive behavior right, so I will apologize.

That's okay, apology accepted.

And like I said before, the fact that I've not been convinced by any of the arguments put forth in this thread does not mean I ignored it all. I read and considered every post. You and others have done a very good job of explaining why it is a right, but you have failed to convince me that it should be a right. I don't think it should be a right. I think it should be a privilege afforded to a very few outside the military and law enforcement, and only for very good reason.

Some people have asked for proposed solutions. I have one, though I admit it is highly idealistic and in all likelihood impossible to put into practice. The goal of this is to bring America's gun crime down to the levels seen in other developed countries, and it is in three basic steps.

1. Repeal the second amendment and all other laws that draw their validity from it
2. Eliminate "self defence" from the list of valid reasons to own guns
3. Buy back and destroy existing guns

Apart from that, keep the completely appropriate restrictions you have on automatic weapons, magazine sizes, etc. These (apart from the first, obviously) are basically the steps Australia took after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, and as you know there hasn't been a single mass shooting in Australia since.

My plan, obviously, does not take into account the psychology of the American people and their "Molon Labe" approach to gun control, which is why my plan almost certainly could never be put into practice. But you asked.

The first step in solving a problem is admitting that the problem exists. Until America is willing to take that step, people will continue to be killed by firearms at rates way higher than the rest of the developed world.

 

[triforcharity]

Sorry Arth, we can't disprove your beliefs, as they're yours and aren't required to be based on logical thought processes. I have beliefs that I know are completely illogical and are based on emotions ONLY. Nobody here is going to change that belief, and nobody can.

As far as the gun control proposal, that'd never happen here. At least not in our lifetimes. It's just not feasible. It's like trying to un-speak something.

My honest opinion is that it won't change until we address two things in this country. Access to more mental health services, and no more lax gun law enforcement. Enforce the laws we currently have with absolute reckless abandon. Start nailing these ****ers to the wall. Commit a crime with a gun? 20 years minimum. And you're doing 20 years. Not 5. 20. Or, about 85% of your time. I think that would do more good than trying to remove the guns that the vast majority of people own and possess without any issues whatever.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

@arth

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Americans already distrust the government massively (especially with the poisonous legacies of Vietnam, Watergate, the Cold War, excesses of the War on Terror and the NSA scandal), which means that any strict gun laws will be a non-starter.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, as I said, I don't think my proposal is actually feasible in practice. Which is a pity, because it's exactly what you need.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Yes, as I said, I don't think my proposal is actually feasible in practice. Which is a pity, because it's exactly what you need.

Because the patriot act turned out so well...

 

[Belz...]

I mean what exactly is the argument for denying someone the ability to arm themselves?

Is it "People cannot be trusted with dangerous technology?"

Is it "weapons are designed to kill, and killing is illegal?"

What really is the argument?

I believe public safety is the concern.

 

[Information Analyst]

I ddin't realize you'd be so pedantic, sorry. Do a victory dance if it makes you feel better, won't change the fact that the bloodiest 3 months since WWII was accomplished largely without firearms.

Well, if you make vague unsubstantiated claims, people will be along to correct you if they don't stand up....

 

[Information Analyst]

Yet another dodge.

You think comparing the Lincoln County War to the Rwandan Geoncide is valid?

 

[Information Analyst]

Nope, in this very thread. Here it is again: http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

"Right wing think-tank bigs up fear of crime. Film at 11...."

 

[Information Analyst]

Is it less of a murder if some other weapon is used? You only care about murders if they're done with something that goes "bang"?

America still has a massively higher overall homicide rate than most other developed countries. Would you seriously contend that every firearms-enabled homice would have be substituted with a homicide by other means in the absence of those firearms? Clearly America has a massive homicide problem, and the availability of firearms is a part of it.

 

[Information Analyst]

The gun crime rate in the UK did not decrease significantly after the gun ban as compared to before, therefore the gun ban did not lower gun crime rates as is often assumed.

Anyone would have to be pretty stupid to assume either, considering the handgun ban affected 50,000 people out of a population of more than 50 million. Taking sporting firearms away from 0.01% of the population isn't going to stop anything other than a licensed recreational shooter from blowing away a load of primary school kids.

Secondly, there is good evidence that the Home Office has been for years deliberately underreporting their crime statistics which brings all the charts, tables, graphs and papers written using those numbers under serious doubt.

Cite for this "good evidence"? In fact, the opposite has been the case, with the Home Office widening the definitions of crime reporting, but these changes are well known and understood, so can be adjusted for (e.g. criminal damage used to rely on a fixed value that was not updated for inflation, but has now been removed totally). And, of course, you can't really get away with under-reporting homicides.

 

[WildCat]

You think comparing the Lincoln County War to the Rwandan Geoncide is valid?

It's obviously smaller-scale but the same principle applies.

 

[WildCat]

Another poorly thought-out comparison.

"Right wing thinktank bigs up fear of crime. Film at 11...."

Ah, 2 answers which don't even address the substance of the posts, let alone refute them.

America still has a massively higher overall homicide rate than most other developed countries. Would you seriously contend that every firearms-enabled homice would have be substituted with a homicide by other means in the absence of those firearms? Clearly America has a massive homicide problem, and the availability of firearms is a part of it.

It's not "massively higher", unless you think 3 more homicides per 100,000 population than the countries with the fewest homicides is "massive". And there's no evidence whatsoever that more gun control would reduce homicide rates.

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the
general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of
conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

[Information Analyst]

You can't compare pioneer-era New Mexico armed with black powder weapons with modern failed-state Rwanda.

No, you can't, but you should be telling Wildcat that, not me.

 

[Information Analyst]

Yes, how DARE an American, during a discussion of an American issue, compare an American event, to another American event, for the simple act of comparison. OH THE HUMANITY!!!!!111!!! 1

Except that Wildcat compared an American event to a Rwandan event.

 

[Information Analyst]

Sure they are. New York is not Boston is not Denver is not Seattle. None of those are Cheyenne or Phoenix. New Orleans is like a little banana republic and inner city Detroit is an impoverished post-industrial failed state. You can't even compare those places without seriously cherry picking.

Comparing cities in totally different economic conditions, arising from totally different cultural backgrounds? Kinda useless.

Yet when we compare country to country, some people overly bitch about that being unfair, because some bits of their country are more crap than other, so let the side down. Then they get into saying that their own country should be judged on the best bits, not the worst bits, ignoring the fact that the same can be said for the constituant parts of other countries, as well.