Gun don't kill people, people kill people

[Thad1527]

I was wrong. That "original intent" idea was a glib cheap way of avoiding a real discussion.
But there's now talk of repealing the Second Amendment. That probably won't fly but it sure would make gun control easier.

 

[Benvolio]

I am committed to the concept of the United States, which rests on a Constitution. To abandon that is to throw out all concept of individuals as beings with dignity and replace it with one regarding some individuals having dignity but the masses being herd animals.

Both big parties talk about the Constitution, but neither has any desire to be committed to it; all that is desired is power and the only real regard for the Constitution is mere lip service. Until we return to being committed to the Constitution, the course of the future will just be a struggle for power that will only end in a one-party state where no rights are honored, only privileges extended to those who can curry favor with The Party.

I would agree, but I know you are committed to your own peculiar sense of what the words mean. As we have discussed many times, free speech for you does not include people organized as corporations. Corporations have no rights for you. The Constitution does no mean much unless we stay close to the original intention. Failing that, it becomes an instrument of authoritarianism. The Supreme Court legislates by claiming to apply the "living" Constitution, and our democracy has not found a way to fight back against it.

 

[KaraBulut]

I would agree, but I know you are committed to your own peculiar sense of what the words mean. As we have discussed many times, free speech for you does not include people organized as corporations. Corporations have no rights for you. The Constitution does no mean much unless we stay close to the original intention. Failing that, it becomes an instrument of authoritarianism. The Supreme Court legislates by claiming to apply the "living" Constitution, and our democracy has not found a way to fight back against it.

Hmmmm....

On one hand, buried in there is a Constitutional argument about the Heller decision but I'm not sure you're saying "originalists" also find ways to ignore both original intent and precedent to revise the law when it suits their purpose?

On the other hand, that argument is buried in is an attempted derail ("corporations are people") that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic, does it?

Are are you arguing that the Second Amendment is more limited that what the Heller decision made it be?

Make your argument again- more concisely.

 

[Benvolio]

Hmmmm....

On one hand, buried in there is a Constitutional argument about the Heller decision but I'm not sure you're saying "originalists" also find ways to ignore both original intent and precedent to revise the law when it suits their purpose?

On the other hand, that argument is buried in is an attempted derail ("corporations are people") that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic, does it?

Are are you arguing that the Second Amendment is more limited that what the Heller decision made it be?

Make your argument again- more concisely.

I was teponding to Kulindahars argument that we should adhere to the Constitution. I agree but his views illustrate the difficulty; he has his own personal meaning of the words.
With respect to the second amendment, the proscription is clear: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is never proper to abolish the clear literal meaning of a contract, law, or Constitution by looking to intent. The predatory language of the 2d amendment to Constitution cannot be used to abolish the literal provision. The framers were not obligated to state all the reasons for the provision, and there can be no doubt that at that time with many living close to the edge of civilization, firearms were essential for hunting game as a necessity for many people as well as for defense from wild animals etc. It is not valid to argue that the sum total of all of their intention was that stated. No doubt they would have said the hunt and defend intention was obvious. The did not give a reason for freedom of speech or religion; the reasons were.
The problem with accepting less than a total proscription under the 2d amendment is that once you admit it is not absolute it becomes a slippery slope; the first of a continuing erosion. If you argue freedom of speech, some liberal will be quick to dredge up shouting fire in a theater as a justification for further limiting speech.

 

[KaraBulut]

I was teponding to Kulindahars argument that we should adhere to the Constitution. I agree but his views illustrate the difficulty; he has his own personal meaning of the words.
With respect to the second amendment, the proscription is clear: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is never proper to abolish the clear literal meaning of a contract, law, or Constitution by looking to intent. The predatory language of the 2d amendment to Constitution cannot be used to abolish the literal provision. The framers were not obligated to state all the reasons for the provision, and there can be no doubt that at that time with many living close to the edge of civilization, firearms were essential for hunting game as a necessity for many people as well as for defense from wild animals etc. It is not valid to argue that the sum total of all of their intention was that stated. No doubt they would have said the hunt and defend intention was obvious. The did not give a reason for freedom of speech or religion; the reasons were.

Well stated. Thank you.

The problem with accepting less than a total proscription under the 2d amendment is that once you admit it is not absolute it becomes a slippery slope; the first of a continuing erosion. If you argue freedom of speech, some liberal will be quick to dredge up shouting fire in a theater as a justification for further limiting speech.

And you came sooooooo close to getting through a single post without defiling your own logic with baiting. Just couldn't make it all the way, eh?

And if in fact, you have a legal background then you know that the "shouting fire in a theater" scenario was established by legal realist and Supreme Court justice (and kinda hot guy), Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr over 100 years ago, long before these sorts of things were considered liberal or conservative or originalist... they were in fact, considered logical and practical.

 

[Benvolio]

Well stated. Thank you.


And you came sooooooo close to getting through a single post without defiling your own logic with baiting. Just couldn't make it all the way, eh?

And if in fact, you have a legal background then you know that the "shouting fire in a theater" scenario was established by legal realist and Supreme Court justice (and kinda hot guy), Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr over 100 years ago, long before these sorts of things were considered liberal or conservative or originalist... they were in fact, considered logical and practical.

Yes, it was Holmes who said it, and if he is looking down on us, he rues the day. But now it is quoted by those who want to limit it freedom of speech. Whether you like it or not, it really is quoted by liberals, not conservatives. Not every mention of the word liberal is baiting. Try to find a conservative in our lifetime quoting it to limit freedom of speech. (Eisenhower writhes in his grave every time a liberal dredges up "military undustrial complex" as though that was all he ever did or said in his life)

 

[KaraBulut]

Yes, it was Holmes who said it, and if he is looking down on us, he rues the day. But now it is quoted by those who want to limit it freedom of speech. Whether you like it or not, it really is quoted by liberals, not conservatives. Not every mention of the word liberal is baiting. Try to find a conservative in our lifetime quoting it to limit freedom of speech. (Eisenhower writhes in his grave every time a liberal dredges up "military undustrial complex" as though that was all he ever did or said in his life)

I've never heard a liberal (or a conservative) use it in the manner that you suggest.

What I do hear is a constant reminder that "freedom of speech" applies only to government's role in suppressing free speech. For some reason, Americans tend to think that it applies to their interactions with each other.

Really- you need to get out more. One would think that the only people that you've believe to be liberals were anarchist-fascists from the turn of the 20th century. There's far more liberals who are civil libertarians than the big ol' boogeymen that you use as a constant strawman.

Bringing it back to topic...
There are people on the left who attempt to do what you're doing with the liberal strawman only their boogeyman is the social conservative crowd (gods, guns, gays). It's an unfair stereotype to categorize all conservatives as second amendment absolutists. What I've found is that most of them realize that there's a problem and they're in favor of reasonable reforms like closing the Charleston loophole (which allows people whose background check hasn't been completed to have their guns anyway after 3 days of waiting) and allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers (all Americans should be entitled to due process).

 

[Benvolio]

I've never heard a liberal (or a conservative) use it in the manner that you suggest.

What I do hear is a constant reminder that "freedom of speech" applies only to government's role in suppressing free speech. For some reason, Americans tend to think that it applies to their interactions with each other.

Really- you need to get out more. One would think that the only people that you've believe to be liberals were anarchist-fascists from the turn of the 20th century. There's far more liberals who are civil libertarians than the big ol' boogeymen that you use as a constant strawman.

Bringing it back to topic...
There are people on the left who attempt to do what you're doing with the liberal strawman only their boogeyman is the social conservative crowd (gods, guns, gays). It's an unfair stereotype to categorize all conservatives as second amendment absolutists. What I've found is that most of them realize that there's a problem and they're in favor of reasonable reforms like closing the Charleston loophole (which allows people whose background check hasn't been completed to have their guns anyway after 3 days of waiting) and allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers (all Americans should be entitled to due process).

Here for instance is Chuck Schumer using the crowded theater to justify limiting the 2d Amendment. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...e36a98-4964-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html
Give the liberals an inch and they will take a mile. Any compromise on the 2d Amendment would start us down yet another slippery slope on the road to serfdom.

 

[KaraBulut]

Here for instance is Chuck Schumer using the crowded theater to justify limiting the 2d Amendment. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...e36a98-4964-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html
Give the liberals an inch and they will take a mile. Any compromise on the 2d Amendment would start us down yet another slippery slope on the road to serfdom.

If you want to use superlatives, then ask the average American whether the idea of serfdom or the slaughter of children is something they prefer.

You may need to define "serfdom" for them.

This is my general complaint about your posts: you're making a really important argument about Constitutional language, the rights of citizens and the safety of citizens. But you keep shitting all over your argument with inflammatory language about "liberals". If you're not careful, someone is going to create a Benvolio BINGO card with all these words that you keep using that just keep people from reading your posts (or in a lot of cases, put you on ignore).

So, here's the fabled Second Amendment. It has two clauses:

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.

Note that there are no capitalizations of any word in the text above.

For years, the courts read BOTH clauses. And in long-standing precedent, they said that their interpretation was that the purpose of this uninfringeable right of the people to keep and bear arms was for the purpose of protecting their own freedom via militias.

One of the really big issues was that the original proposal for the "right" capitalized Militia and State. So, it was clearer that this right was to allow citizens to use weapons to defend the State (versus their own state of freedom- State vs state) in Militias (as in local formalized military groups - Militias vs militias).

Now, this is where every member of JUB who feels strongly about the issue will start citing history and legal precedent that supports State vs state and Military vs military to support their feelings about the issue of gun rights.

The Heller decision of 2008 is the source of the contention between those in favor of gun control and those in favor of gun rights. This Supreme Court decision changed the long-standing interpretation to read more like:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to be free shall not be infringed

Basically, the Court in Heller said, that people have the right to own guns (specifically handguns) to protect themselves, their property, their home and their liberty. Y'all don't worry so much about that militia-thingamajig.

That's a big leap from the precedent decisions.

The editorial you cited - from WaPo (good choice) - is about a different issue, though.

This paragraph in the WaPo editorial states the absolutism of two different groups on the extremes of the gun issue very well.

The gun debate of the past two decades has devolved into a permanent tug-of-war between the National Rifle Association (NRA) and advocates of gun safety. One side has viewed the Second Amendment as absolute; the other has tried to pretend that it doesn’t exist. The result is a failure to find any consensus, even as one mass shooting after another underscores the need for sensible reform.

But that paragraph is not what Schumer is asking!

Schumer's question is in the next paragraph:

Heller told the two sides that they were each only half-right: The right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed, but reasonable limitations are allowed.

The question that Chuck Schumer is asking differentiates between gun ownership (which everyone agrees is legal) vs the right of the State to regulate sales of weapons- specifically high-capacity, high-volume, high-velocity weapons that are used to kill people. In other words, does the right of the individual to own these guns outweigh the public good (safety, the pursuit of happiness, etc).

A citizen only has the right to own a gun (the right to keep arms) if he/she can get his hands on it. If the state doesn't allow it to be sold (the State's right to regulate commerce), then there's no ownership, is there?

That's not a case of liberal vs conservative... it's an essential question about how we balance individual rights against the rights and safety of the People at-large.

 

[Benvolio]

If you want to use superlatives, then ask the average American whether the idea of serfdom or the slaughter of children is something they prefer.

You may need to define "serfdom" for them.

This is my general complaint about your posts: you're making a really important argument about Constitutional language, the rights of citizens and the safety of citizens. But you keep shitting all over your argument with inflammatory language about "liberals". If you're not careful, someone is going to create a Benvolio BINGO card with all these words that you keep using that just keep people from reading your posts (or in a lot of cases, put you on ignore).

So, here's the fabled Second Amendment. It has two clauses:


Note that there are no capitalizations of any word in the text above.

For years, the courts read BOTH clauses. And in long-standing precedent, they said that their interpretation was that the purpose of this uninfringeable right of the people to keep and bear arms was for the purpose of protecting their own freedom via militias.

One of the really big issues was that the original proposal for the "right" capitalized Militia and State. So, it was clearer that this right was to allow citizens to use weapons to defend the State (versus their own state of freedom- State vs state) in Militias (as in local formalized military groups - Militias vs militias).

Now, this is where every member of JUB who feels strongly about the issue will start citing history and legal precedent that supports State vs state and Military vs military to support their feelings about the issue of gun rights.

The Heller decision of 2008 is the source of the contention between those in favor of gun control and those in favor of gun rights. This Supreme Court decision changed the long-standing interpretation to read more like:


Basically, the Court in Heller said, that people have the right to own guns (specifically handguns) to protect themselves, their property, their home and their liberty. Y'all don't worry so much about that militia-thingamajig.

That's a big leap from the precedent decisions.

The editorial you cited - from WaPo (good choice) - is about a different issue, though.

This paragraph in the WaPo editorial states the absolutism of two different groups on the extremes of the gun issue very well.


But that paragraph is not what Schumer is asking!

Schumer's question is in the next paragraph:


The question that Chuck Schumer is asking differentiates between gun ownership (which everyone agrees is legal) vs the right of the State to regulate sales of weapons- specifically high-capacity, high-volume, high-velocity weapons that are used to kill people. In other words, does the right of the individual to own these guns outweigh the public good (safety, the pursuit of happiness, etc).

A citizen only has the right to own a gun (the right to keep arms) if he/she can get his hands on it. If the state doesn't allow it to be sold (the State's right to regulate commerce), then there's no ownership, is there?

That's not a case of liberal vs conservative... it's an essential question about how we balance individual rights against the rights and safety of the People at-large.

No it is liberal versus conservative, authoritarian versus libertarian. The 2d amendment does not suggest weighing balencing rights against bigger government. The prohibition of sales of guns is definitely an "infringement" of the right to keep and bear arms and is intended to end that right. If the government can limit sales of high capacity guns it can end the sale of all hand guns, rifles and shotguns, and can end gifts and inheritance of guns. And yes it would only be a matter of time before the democrats would end all gun ownership. Any admission that the 2d amendment does not protect all guns will end all gun ownership eventually.
Who would have thought that regulation of commerce among the states would allow the federal government to penalize a farmer for plowing his own land (wetland), or prohibit him from growing what he wants for his own use (marijuana)?

 

[KaraBulut]

No it is liberal versus conservative, authoritarian versus libertarian. The 2d amendment does not suggest weighing balencing rights against bigger government. The prohibition of sales of guns is definitely an "infringement" of the right to keep and bear arms and is intended to end that right. If the government can limit sales of high capacity guns it can end the sale of all hand guns, rifles and shotguns, and can end gifts and inheritance of guns. And yes it would only be a matter of time before the democrats would end all gun ownership. Any admission that the 2d amendment does not protect all guns will end all gun ownership eventually.
Who would have thought that regulation of commerce among the states would allow the federal government to penalize a farmer for plowing his own land (wetland), or prohibit him from growing what he wants for his own use (marijuana)?

But that's the core issue on all of these things.

The wetlands issue becomes "does the right of the property owner to spoil wetlands override the rights of neighbors who have their land flooded when the wetlands are drained/filled?".

The marijuana issue becomes "does the right of the property owner to grow plants on his own land override the rights of neighbors who feel that marijuana is a dangerous drug?".

And the gun issue becomes "does the right of someone to own a semi-automatic rifle override the rights of his neighbors and local law enforcement to have a reasonable assurance of safety from being shot and likely killed?".

Citizens also have the right to petition their government when these rights need to be sorted out. And that's what we're doing... except that there are organizations whose money seems to be overriding the petition rights of citizens, at least on the gun issues.

 

[Benvolio]

But that's the core issue on all of these things.

The wetlands issue becomes "does the right of the property owner to spoil wetlands override the rights of neighbors who have their land flooded when the wetlands are drained/filled?".

The marijuana issue becomes "does the right of the property owner to grow plants on his own land override the rights of neighbors who feel that marijuana is a dangerous drug?".

And the gun issue becomes "does the right of someone to own a semi-automatic rifle override the rights of his neighbors and local law enforcement to have a reasonable assurance of safety from being shot and likely killed?".

Citizens also have the right to petition their government when these rights need to be sorted out. And that's what we're doing... except that there are organizations whose money seems to be overriding the petition rights of citizens, at least on the gun issues.

It is dishonest to blame it on money. Some people believe in Rights and do not want total government. The Constitution was intended and written to limit the federal government and to place some rights permanently out of reach of those who wish unlimited gavernment. But the Constitution means nothing to you. The proper way is to amend the Constitution, not to impose your agenda on the people by authoritarian means.

 

[Benvolio]

But that's the core issue on all of these things.

The wetlands issue becomes "does the right of the property owner to spoil wetlands override the rights of neighbors who have their land flooded when the wetlands are drained/filled?".

The marijuana issue becomes "does the right of the property owner to grow plants on his own land override the rights of neighbors who feel that marijuana is a dangerous drug?".

And the gun issue becomes "does the right of someone to own a semi-automatic rifle override the rights of his neighbors and local law enforcement to have a reasonable assurance of safety from being shot and likely killed?".

Citizens also have the right to petition their government when these rights need to be sorted out. And that's what we're doing... except that there are organizations whose money seems to be overriding the petition rights of citizens, at least on the gun issues.

Your response does not explain how wetlands an own use marijuana are commerce among the states? They are not and the federal government has no such constitutional power. Such powers are reserved to the states.

 

[Thad1527]

The more I consider this, the more I think repeal of the Second Amendment might be an excellent idea.

 

[gsdx]

The prohibition of sales of guns is definitely an "infringement" of the right to keep and bear arms and is intended to end that right.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting the complete ban of guns. We're only suggesting that they ban or restrict the sale of weapons that can end the lives of dozens and dozens of people within seconds from the 32nd storey of a hotel.

 

[KaraBulut]

It is dishonest to blame it on money. Some people believe in Rights and do not want total government. The Constitution was intended and written to limit the federal government and to place some rights permanently out of reach of those who wish unlimited gavernment. But the Constitution means nothing to you. The proper way is to amend the Constitution, not to impose your agenda on the people by authoritarian means.

The courts have held that the government cannot deny citizens the right to own gun but they have also held that government has the right to legislation gun sales.

The polls say that over 90% of the public are in favor of things like background checks.

There's not other explanation for why a 10% minority overrules a 90% majority... other than the $30 million donated in the last election cycle almost entirely to Republicans... well, and those emails from the RNC instructing their members to say "now is not the time to discuss gun reform" to avoid pissing off the NRA.

Your response does not explain how wetlands an own use marijuana are commerce among the states? They are not and the federal government has no such constitutional power. Such powers are reserved to the states.

My response is not intended to adjudicate these rights... that's why we have a co-equal judicial and legislative branch.

 

[KaraBulut]

The more I consider this, the more I think repeal of the Second Amendment might be an excellent idea.

I don't think any mainstream politician has suggested this and even if they were to suggest it, the US has more guns in circulation than people - over 300 million. That ship has sailed.

 

[gsdx]

The Constitution grants the right to bear arms, but nowhere does it say which arms can be borne. Nobody needs weapons the likes bought and used by Paddock. Nobody. Banning weapons capable of mass slaughter is not an infringement. There are still plenty of guns available.

Keeping track of the weapons bought and by whom would be a good idea, too. Red flags would pop up if they were recorded in a central database.

 

[Benvolio]

I don't think anyone here is suggesting the complete ban of guns. We're only suggesting that they ban or restrict the sale of weapons that can end the lives of dozens and dozens of people within seconds from the 32nd storey of a hotel.

That is the first step on the slippery slope. Eventually all guns in private hands would be banned.

 

[Benvolio]

The courts have held that the government cannot deny citizens the right to own gun but they have also held that government has the right to legislation gun sales.

The polls say that over 90% of the public are in favor of things like background checks.

There's not other explanation for why a 10% minority overrules a 90% majority... other than the $30 million donated in the last election cycle almost entirely to Republicans... well, and those emails from the RNC instructing their members to say "now is not the time to discuss gun reform" to avoid pissing off the NRA.


My response is not intended to adjudicate these rights... that's why we have a co-equal judicial and legislative branch.

Polls are not a governmental system. At best they are transient; worse, they are easily manipulated and fabricated.