The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

[RenaissanceBiker]

I sat on a jury in U.S. District Court where we convicted a man of being a felon in possession of a firearm, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime. The defendant's attorney argued strenously against that last charge because of the effect it would have on his sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines

 

[Xulld]

That is an explanation for the lack of political will. Death is preferred to the nanny state.

If indeed we agree that the actual causes of violence are other than the potential to legally own a handgun, which clearly is true, then we can avoid a nanny state AND reduce the rate of murder.

One need not trade for the other if we actually address the reasons people choose violence.

 

[Giz]

That is an explanation for the lack of political will. Death is preferred to the nanny state.

Well, remember it's not that bad. Some of us even make it to old age (here's hoping!)

 

[lobosrul]

That is an explanation for the lack of political will. Death is preferred to the nanny state.

No, a minuscule chance of death is preferred to the nanny state.

 

[Delvo]

If criminals wants guns/drugs/hookers/gambling/liquor, they are going to find a way to get it...

No. Maybe some fraction of those who want to always will, but that fraction depends on the circumstances. Make it harder to do, and fewer will do it. Make it easier to do, and more will do it.

So you didn't propose to reduce the number of guns available to criminals by removing them from law abiding people?

Of course not, because equating "reduce gun availability" with "remove guns from law-abiding people" is a straw herring. Under tighter gun ownership restrictions or a total gun ban, guns would not be taken only from the law-abiding; they would also be confiscated from "criminals" at every opportunity, even preferentially.

 

[arthwollipot]

A different way of expressing it is that many governments are more willing to restrict individuals rights in order to enhance societal stability. America tends to go the other way.

Which way is best depends on you fondness for nanny statism.

The phrase "nanny state" is a scaremongering weasel-phrase that is only ever used in order to further ideological doctrine. It is a meaningless phrase that libertarians and proponents of let-me-do-what-the-hell-I-like-and-to-hell-with-society-ism use in order to make people suspicious and mistrustful of what is commonly quite reasonable and justified regulation. As soon as you use the phrase "nanny state" in an argument, I know that your argument consists of mere propaganda.

Just out of curiosity, are you willing to take away knives and other weapons too? I have a concealed carry permit and seldom actually carry a pistol concealed. I carry a Gerber paraframe knife every day.

There are already quite reasonable restrictions on knives and other weapons. I've just looked up the legislation for the ACT, and it prohibits flick knives, sheath knives, concealable daggers, butterfly knives, shuriken, trench knives, spring knives, throwing knives and Wolverine claws. It also prohibits nuchakus, tonfas, weighted gloves, maces, flails, metal-studded whips and telescopic batons (among other prohibited articles - the legislation is here (pdf)). I believe your knife would be legal to own without a permit in this area.

To cut a long story short, yes, I am willing to take away knives and other weapons if they contravene the law.

If I may in turn indulge my curiosity (since we're already slightly off-topic), what do you use your knife for? Do you use it daily? I assume you use it when hunting - anything else?

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

To cut a long story short, yes, I am willing to take away knives and other weapons if they contravene the law.

Sure but if someone proposes a change in the law that would take away all knives, would you be for or against it?

If I may in turn indulge my curiosity (since we're already slightly off-topic), what do you use your knife for? Do you use it daily? I assume you use it when hunting - anything else?

Here's my daily carry. I can open and close it one handed just as this guy does. Mostly I use it for mundane purposes such as opening boxes, cutting rope, etc. It may also serve as a self-defense tool if needed.

My hunting knife may run afoul of your law against sheath knives. It's also a Gerber.

 

[arthwollipot]

Sure but if someone proposes a change in the law that would take away all knives, would you be for or against it?

I'd say the Chef's Union might have something to say about that. No, I wouldn't be in favour of that law, just as I wouldn't be in favour of a law that would take away all guns.

Here's my daily carry. I can open and close it one handed just as this guy does. Mostly I use it for mundane purposes such as opening boxes, cutting rope, etc. It may also serve as a self-defense tool if needed.

My hunting knife may run afoul of your law against sheath knives. It's also a Gerber.

"Sheath Knife" wasn't something I was familiar with, at least as defined in the legislation. In fact, I can't imagine such a device.

a sheath knife or other similar device that has a sheath that
withdraws into the handle by—
(a) gravity or centrifugal force; or
(b) pressure applied to a button, spring or device in or attached
to the handle of the device

I think your hunting knife would be fine.

 

[zooterkin]

"Sheath Knife" wasn't something I was familiar with, at least as defined in the legislation. In fact, I can't imagine such a device.

That's not what "sheath knife" means to me. When I was in the Scouts, we had a small knife we kept in a sheath on our belt, used for various camping related activities (whittling tent pegs, and so on), which was called by that name (I think it's still in an attic, somewhere). There was a small outcry when the laws in the UK changed, making it illegal to carry them (on two grounds, I, think, age of the carrier, and the type of the knife).

The Gerber Paraframe looks cool, though, and (I'm slightly surprised to find), legal in the UK. I thought at first that the blade locked into place, but it doesn't, so it's fine.

 

[Belz...]

So you didn't propose to reduce the number of guns available to criminals by removing them from law abiding people?

No, because that would make no sense.

Lots of backpedaling going on here.

Quote me. People shouldn't just take you at your word.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

The phrase "nanny state" is a scaremongering weasel-phrase that is only ever used in order to further ideological doctrine. It is a meaningless phrase that libertarians and proponents of let-me-do-what-the-hell-I-like-and-to-hell-with-society-ism use in order to make people suspicious and mistrustful of what is commonly quite reasonable and justified regulation. As soon as you use the phrase "nanny state" in an argument, I know that your argument consists of mere propaganda.

It takes STRONG MEN to make HARD DECISIONS to save people from themselves!

And Americans have a lot of reasons to distrust the government, not least:

- Illegal state surveillance (and the NSA systematically lying to those who are supposed to hold it accountable)
- The excesses of the War on Terror (Iraq, Extraordinary Rendition, Gitmo etc.)
- The War on Drugs incarcerating the most people on the planet
- Blue Wall of Silence meaning that police misconduct is rarely if ever punished
- The handling of the financial crisis (not least with corrupt bankers not even getting a slap on the hand)

 

[Nessie]

If indeed we agree that the actual causes of violence are other than the potential to legally own a handgun, which clearly is true, then we can avoid a nanny state AND reduce the rate of murder.

One need not trade for the other if we actually address the reasons people choose violence.

That depends on who you think should have the potential to legally own a handgun and how you regulate it.

 

[Nessie]

No, a minuscule chance of death is preferred to the nanny state.

Yes, that is 42 times higher than the UK rate.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

You seem to know a lot about US history, and not much about UK history.

I can't think of any scummy **** the UK has done in the past 50 years that approaches what the US has gotten up to (Vietnam War).

And I guess Americans are supposed to go "GOVERNMENT GOOD! Government never lies because government good!" like they did back in the 50s, even with the recent Edward Snowden revelations?

There are plenty of comparable issues that might make various Western countries' populations distrust their governments. It's not my problem if you don't know about them.

Really? I don't recall other countries kidnapping citizens of other countries and taking them to third party countries to be tortured. I don't recall criminal justice policies being used to systematically discriminate against minorities to the extent that the US has done (Read about the War on Drugs) or incarcerate people to the extent that the US has. I don't recall other countries going into Iraq the way the US did.

 

[Nessie]

......

Of course not, because equating "reduce gun availability" with "remove guns from law-abiding people" is a straw herring. Under tighter gun ownership restrictions or a total gun ban, guns would not be taken only from the law-abiding; they would also be confiscated from "criminals" at every opportunity, even preferentially.

I like "straw herring"! I would also like to emphasis how much the pro gun side try and paint all the anti gun side as wanting to confiscate guns from the law abiding when that is not always true.

Delvo talks of taking them from both, more so the criminals. I don't propose taking them from the law abiding at all and to concentrate all resources on taking them from criminals.

What I ask regards to the law abiding is better checks to make sure they are not just law abiding but also suitable to have a gun. But since that is regarded as too nanny for some, I have been pragmatic and said to concentrate everything on getting them off criminals.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

The Gerber Paraframe looks cool, though, and (I'm slightly surprised to find), legal in the UK. I thought at first that the blade locked into place, but it doesn't, so it's fine.

It does lock. The release is on the underside of the handle rather than the backside. That allows the user to close it one-handed. At 0:48 of the video, you can see him unlock it with a sideways motion of his thumb. I can do it just as fast as he does.

ETA: Looking at the list on your link, I have about six knives that would be illegal in the UK, including a hollow kubaton with a "spike" and one that might be considered a "push dagger." I carried the dagger while hunting before I got the one with the gut hook and I have carried the hollow kubaton on a keychain in public many times.

 

[Giz]

Yes, that is 42 times higher than the UK rate.

4 times as high. 1.2 vs 4.7 (per 100,000).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

 

[zooterkin]

It does lock. The release is on the underside of the handle rather than the backside. That allows the user to close it one-handed. At 0:48 of the video, you can see him unlock it with a sideways motion of his thumb. I can do it just as fast as he does.

Thanks, it wasn't clear what he was doing. Looks to me as though it's not illegal to own in the UK, but it is illegal to carry it in public (because the blade locks).

 

[WildCat]

No, because that would make no sense.



Quote me. People shouldn't just take you at your word.

Okay, here we go:

No it's not. My original point was "I'm not sure we can argue against laws on the basis that criminals don't respect them", to which you claimed that "No, we're arguing that somehow taking guns away from law abiding people will keep gangbangers and other criminals from shooting each other." But that's not what was being said. It was simply said that it would reduce the available guns for criminals, which you rephrased in a (dishonest) way to make it sound like something else. I pointed out that it's like other products and services we restrict, and then you went off about the war on drugs and prostitution.

Once again, I can back up my points while you continuously deny that you've posted what you did. Someone is being blatantly dishonest in this thread, and it's not me.

Keep spinning and backpedaling Belz!

 

[Xulld]

The phrase "nanny state" is a scaremongering weasel-phrase that is only ever used in order to further ideological doctrine. It is a meaningless phrase that libertarians and proponents of let-me-do-what-the-hell-I-like-and-to-hell-with-society-ism use in order to make people suspicious and mistrustful of what is commonly quite reasonable and justified regulation. As soon as you use the phrase "nanny state" in an argument, I know that your argument consists of mere propaganda.

Its funny that you call it ideology to call any legislation nanny state legislation, then present an unequivocal unyielding view point that glosses over any distinctions. . . . you know like an ideologue?

I think that banning locking blade knives of certain sizes, which has already been discussed in this thread are a good example of something which cannot be objectively supported as diminishing crime yet still is illegal in some sense in some countries and could be meaningfully described as a nanny state policy. Plenty of examples can be had and people can argue one way or the other without being an ideologue.

Unequivocal statements like the one you made tells me that you are an uncritical thinker who allows his own bias to paint the narrative vs the objective facts of any given situation. You may disagree with my description, but to unequivocally pretend all potential descriptions are invalid without respect to the qualities makes you a hypocrite.