Another Second Amendment win in California

[BStrong]

I cover that under background checks.



Neither can you buy alcohol for minors. But realistically speaking, what stops people from doing either? The only way you would get caught is if the other person is caught in the commission of a crime.



And those that are normally prohibited from buying guns legally are likely to identify themselves I take it?



It really shouldn't.

I agree. Since the majority of states (42) are "shall-issue" or "no permit required" to carry firearms, the remaining 8 should catch up to history.

 

[Cylinder]

Neither can you buy alcohol for minors.

I suggest going to your wine merchant and telling asking the salesperson to help you select a wine for your older sister - she gave you a budget of $25. Then go to the gun dealer and ask them to help you select a .45ACP for your sister - she gave you a budget of $500. In one of those instances, you'll have to swear an oath that you're not buying the item for another person. One you will not.

 

[Bardy]

In any case guns aren't the only way one can defend themselves, nor are they best way to do so.

This is a position of stunning naivete. Leaving aside the submission of locking yourself in your house and defining this as 'defending yourself', guns are by far the most efficient way of defending yourself for the vast majority of the population. In a world where anyone can become a victim of crime, guns are a great equalizer.

Thew are very limited ways in which an 80 year old woman can defend herself against a physical attack. A 5-foot tall woman has limited options when confronted by a large or even normally sized man. A sick, disabled or even perfectly normal man is equally at risk of serious injury or death when confronted by an assailant, and this is true even in those countries which have no guns.

Particularly in a country as awash with firearms as the USA, guns are the best line of defense when a physical attack is imminent because it totally levels the playing field. No longer are those at a physical disadvantage simply prey to those who are bigger, stronger, faster or more numerous.

Again, you want to make society safer. I applaud you for that. I want society to be safer. The difference between us is that I realise that society is made up of individuals - individuals who your vision of gun control would made less safe.

I have a deal for you - you give me a strategy which is cast-iron in its guarantee that it will first disarm every criminal before it disarms a single law abiding citizen, and I might begin to consider your viewpoint as a viable one. Until then, you are advocating a position which makes society less safe by virtue of reducing the ability of the individuals within it to defend themselves.

I genuinely believe that you fail to see the absolute firestorm of crime that would result from widespread gun control in this country after gun-toting criminals become aware of the disarming of law-abiding citizens. Will you apologize personally to those who suffer as a result?

 

[I Ratant]

You make a good case, but still ignore the cost to the United States that this particular 'right' brings with it. In any case guns aren't the only way one can defend themselves, nor are they best way to do so.

.
It has been said that if you pull a gun on a Hell's Angel, you had better use it, or be prepared to eat it!
Most of the time, the best way to avoid a situation where a gun comes in handy is don't go there!

 

[I Ratant]

I agree. Since the majority of states (42) are "shall-issue" or "no permit required" to carry firearms, the remaining 8 should catch up to history.

.
Isn't that the "argumentum ad populum"?.....

 

[Bardy]

Most of the time, the best way to avoid a situation where a gun comes in handy is don't go there!

Absolutely, and if I go through my entire life without ever seeing my family or myself have to use a gun for self-defense, i will be extremely pleased. The above statement is one of the reasons why few of us choose to wander the streets of inner-city [wherever] at 2:00am. Sadly, the situations in which you may need to defend yourself are not static zones of time and space that we can choose not to enter. Dangerous situations can make their own merry way to visit you even if you exert your best efforts to avoid them.

And, of course, i will continue to flog the deadest of horses by asking why as a society we should accept telling people not to go out after dark and not to go to any place where a crime may occur is a better solution than allowing law-abiding citizens to go to places they have every legal right to be, with the ability to defend themselves if accosted?

 

[WildCat]

That' s deeply twisty thinking based on your own biases.

If it's so simple, why so much controversy?

If it's so simple, why so much scholarly work on it?

If it's so simple, why have so many SCOTUS rulings ad to be made?

Lawyers are involved, and many people really don't like guns, that's why.

You can find controversy surrounding the 1st Amendment too, as well as the 4th, 5th, etc etc.

But here we have people arguing that "the people" aren't really "the people", but the government. That takes some especially convoluted thinking.

 

[WildCat]

The only information that was presented was in the link to the Bloomberg news article. Did you read it? I did and I didn't think it supported what was implied. This is from Business Insider:

And the overwhelming majority of those contributions are from individuals, not from the firearms industry. You act as if the only funding the NRA gets from individuals is from membership dues, which is simply not even close to being the case. You lumped MidwayUSA into "firearms industry" contributions, when in fact that money is from individuals rounding up their purchases to donate to the NRA.

If you want to see astroturf look no further than Bloomberg's anti-gun groups and the Brady Campaign.

 

[WildCat]

Any one with a valid identification, age eighteen or older, can get a firearm.

Background checks are only required for handguns.

Not true in any state.

Licenses and training are only required for concealed carry, and sometimes not even then.

Which hasn't been shown to be a problem.

You are not required to register your weapons or insure them...

Why should you?

I'm sorry but there must be some definition for 'stringent' with which I'm not aware.

There's just a few tens of thousands of laws wrt firearms you either "forgot" to mention or you are simply ignorant of.

 

[Xulld]

.
Isn't that the "argumentum ad populum"?.....

Wasn't his argument, he turned it back around on its owner quite handily through didn't he?

That' s deeply twisty thinking based on your own biases.

If it's so simple, why so much controversy?

If it's so simple, why so much scholarly work on it?

If it's so simple, why have so many SCOTUS rulings ad to be made?

Its interesting how you start with your conviction, and then ask questions. It shows your own bias quite clearly.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game : a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.[

You can disagree with Tucker all you want, but his meaning is clear as a bell here, and he even gave examples. There really cannot be any ambiguity in the meaning of the 2nd amendment when such writings exist and are referenced in rulings down the centuries.

If you disagree work to change the amendment, stop trying to revise history and interpret the meaning otherwise, its dishonest at best.

So much evidence in favor of individual rights, its shocking this discussion still comes up, but really knowing how bad most people are at remembering what they had for lunch and believing in magic men in the sky I guess my shock is a bit naive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Tucker.2FBlackstone
SOOO much historical evidence available. So much . . .

 

[BStrong]

.
Isn't that the "argumentum ad populum"?.....

When it comes to politicians and firearms in California it's closer to argumentum non compos mentis.

 

[3point14]

I think that's a valid complaint. I think the outsider has to also be aware (as you rightly point out) that it's an issue that ignites passion among Americans and that the issue is foreign (in both senses of meaning) to many outsiders.

It would be somewhat analogous, for instance, if I argued against the NHS - that UK residents do not have any right to government-funded health care. I'd have to do quite a bit of research and assimilate some cultural knowledge to assert that claim critically. The parts of my argument that aren't approached from the perspective of critical thought might be inflammatory to residents within the UK.

That's not to say you should not participate in the discussion or that your opinion is any less valid - just that maybe an outsider can (and I have no evidence that you've ever done this so it's a posit - not an accusation) present an argument that kind of identifies with a some other belief or presupposes that belief without understanding it.

Thank you.

With regard to the bolded bit, I don't think we do it (UHC) because it's a 'right', we just do it because it's a really good idea, makes everyone healthier and is good for the economy and makes healthcare cheaper.

I'm not sure (and this is mostly speculation) that, for better or for worse, the rest of the western world thinks so much about 'rights' as the USA. I suspect that's cultural to and a lot to do with deeply cultural beliefs (accurate or otherwise) about the forming of the country.

 

[3point14]

Lawyers are involved, and many people really don't like guns, that's why.

You can find controversy surrounding the 1st Amendment too, as well as the 4th, 5th, etc etc.

But here we have people arguing that "the people" aren't really "the people", but the government. That takes some especially convoluted thinking.

I'm not arguing that 'the people' doesn't mean 'the people'. I'm arguing that there are two clauses and it's utterly unclear if they're supposed to be in any way connected or dependent on one another.

I'm sorry, but if you think the second amendment is a clear piece of legislation then I just haven't got a way to try to think like you do to try to understand your position. You are the only person I have ever heard try to describe the wording of very poorly worded amendment as clear.

If it were clearly worded, it wouldn't be subject to interpretive changes by (I believe) a sequence of court rulings.

If it were clearly worded, you would not be so worried about people coming to take your sidearm away because the amendment would be too specifically worded for even a lawyer to get around it. It's not.

 

[3point14]

If you disagree work to change the amendment, stop trying to revise history and interpret the meaning otherwise, its dishonest at best.

Try to understand that some people don't live in your country.

I really couldn't, if I may get slightly annoyed about this, give a rats backside about anyone coming to take all your guns away and replacing them with bananas.

I also couldn't give a rats backside if someone wanted to issue a .22 to every five year old so they'd get used to firearms.

I'm certainly not going to work to affect your constitution in any way because it doesn't have the first affect on my life.



That text you quoted, is that the amendment? or a scholarly article written by someone other than the writer of the amendment? Is the text part of the constitution or part of the law? I ask because, and you may have missed this, I am not a citizen of the USA and don't know.



ETA: Clicked the link.

So, can I just get this straight, this Tucker fellow is a commentator?

I'm all for voicing opinions, but are you stating that mans opinion as fact?

 

[3point14]

Please delete

 

[tyr_13]

I'm not arguing that 'the people' doesn't mean 'the people'. I'm arguing that there are two clauses and it's utterly unclear if they're supposed to be in any way connected or dependent on one another.

Actually the 'justify clause-therefore' format was very common at the time, and nowhere is it used to invalidate the later letters of the law. More than a few of the drafts of other amendments also contained justifying clauses which were dropped. If I remember correctly the right to free speech used the justification that being able to speak and be heard in the legislature. Would people then be able to argue for taxes and licensing on speech not made to the legislature? Not traditionally. Using the first clause as a 'time/group' limitation is fairly fringe for such law, and I can't find any examples of legislation from the time that was invalidated by such a clause, but it gains traction with people on the 2nd Amendment.

That includes people like Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, and Stevens, with whom I disagree. They wrote (well, Stevens wrote):

The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves".

I'm generally a left wing guy, but this reasoning so prevalent in the left strikes me as seeing only what one wants to see, and justifying based on a desired outcome rather than what's actually there.

Nowhere else is 'the people' used to mean anything other than 'the people'. That 'the militia' is mentioned doesn't change that especially as 'the militia' is a subset of the people. A precedent like that proposed by the dissent would leave 'freedom of the press' out in the cold.

Furthermore, the Bill of Rights is listing rights of the people, civilians, not of government. They are sourced in what were thought of as 'natural rights'. The right to bear arms is a direct outgrowth of the English common law 'natural right' of self defense.

tl;dr version: Based on such language in other laws from the time the clauses are not dependent on one another.

 

[Cylinder]

That text you quoted, is that the amendment? or a scholarly article written by someone other than the writer of the amendment? Is the text part of the constitution or part of the law? I ask because, and you may have missed this, I am not a citizen of the USA and don't know.



ETA: Clicked the link.

So, can I just get this straight, this Tucker fellow is a commentator?

I'm all for voicing opinions, but are you stating that mans opinion as fact?

St. George Tucker is analogous to William Blackstone. He took Blackstone's Commentaries on English common law and interpreted them in light of the new US Constitution.

I wouldn't exactly quote his opinion as fact in law, but it does make a compelling argument regarding his contemporary interpretation of meaning which is basically what's being argued there.

There are many people in this debate who assert that the legislative intent or contemporary meaning of the second amendment was to allow states to raise militia forces without interference from the federal government and that the individual interpretation was invented by pro-gun activists this century. It's an accusation of historic revisionism based on political dogma. The best method to refute this (ahistorical) claim is to quote the founders and the legal scholars of the time - just as courts (or advocates) will sometimes revisit Blackstone to help illustrate a point about English common law.

If it were just Tucker's Blackstone (or American Blackstone -- which is the edition title that I like to use) then the argument might be weak, but the proponents of the Bill of Rights argued for individual protections, the acts themselves designated them as individual protections, and the contemporary legal authors (such as Tucker) interpreted them as individual protections. The Bill of Rights was a compromise between the proponents of a strong federal government and the moderate opponents who wanted to stress individual protections in the new charter.

 

[Cylinder]

I'm generally a left wing guy, but this reasoning so prevalent in the left strikes me as seeing only what one wants to see, and justifying based on a desired outcome rather than what's actually there.

It totally is is left-wing issue, IMO.

Accept the militia interpretation for sake of argument and you end up with the same result - the militia at the time of adoption were adult white males basically of good repute. We have to strip away white and male due to intervening law and end up at basically the same place - adults who aren't felons.

The statist argument also ends where it began -- the power should reside with the state -- the liberal argument being that the right belongs to the people.

 

[Polaris]

.
Isn't that the "argumentum ad populum"?.....

No more than when it's applied to lifting bans on gay marriage.

 

[Mudcat]

I agree. Since the majority of states (42) are "shall-issue" or "no permit required" to carry firearms, the remaining 8 should catch up to history.

Or maybe those forty- two states could implement some common-fudging-sense laws restricting firearms to people who don't need and shouldn't have them.